Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramhet Dhakad vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 September, 2021
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-18609-2021
(RAMHET DHAKAD Vs STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS)
Gwalior, Dated : 16-09-2021
Shri S.K. Sharma, Counsel for petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agrawal, Government Advocate for the State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following reliefs :
"(i) That, the impugned transfer order dated 31.08.2021
Annex.P/1 may kindly be quashed.
(ii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High
Court may deem fit, with cost of the petition."
It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that as per clause 6 (7)
of Madhya Pradesh Panchayat Service (Gram Panchayat Secretary
Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011, it is clearly
provided that the transfer shall be made only in accordance with
policy framed by the State and since the transfer policy has been
framed by the State Government, therefore, it has statutory force. It is
submitted that the petitioner is a low paid employee and he has been
transferred from Jalahgarh, Janpad Panchayat Sabalgarh to Sikrodi
Janpad Panchayat Ambah on administrative ground which is about
120 km. away from the present place of posting.
By referring to clause 5 of transfer policy dated 24.06.2021, it is
submitted by counsel for petitioner that the transfer should have been
made by the Collector after taking approval from the in-charge
Minister, however, that has not been done. The wife of petitioner is
suffering from mental disease and her treatment is going on and in
2
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-18609-2021
(RAMHET DHAKAD Vs STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS)
case if the petitioner is shifted to a distant place, then her treatment
would get adversely affected. The petitioner has made a representation
which has not been decided so far.
Per contra, petition is vehemently opposed by counsel for State.
It is submitted that the transfer is an exigency of service and no one
can claim that he should be posted at a particular place.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the entire writ petition, the petitioner has not disclosed the
date from which he is working at the present place of posting. Thus, it
is clear that the petitioner must have completed a considerable long
period at the present place of posting. From the impugned transfer
order which has been issued by CEO, Zila Panchayat Morena, it is
clear that the said transfer order has been issued after obtaining
approval from the in-charge Minister as well as Collector, Morena.
Thus, it is clear that although the ministerial job of issuing transfer
order has been performed by the CEO, Zila Panchayat Morena but his
transfer order has been issued only after obtaining approval from the
in-charge Minister as well as Collector Morena. So far as the ground
that the transfer of petitioner at a place which is about 120 km away
from the present place of posting is concerned, the said ground cannot
be said to be a valid ground for quashing the transfer order.
The Supreme Court in the case of Namrata Verma Vs. State of
3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-18609-2021
(RAMHET DHAKAD Vs STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS)
UP and others by order dated 06.09.2021 passed in SLP (Civil)
No.36717/2017 has held that "it is not for the employee to insist to
transfer him/her and/or not to transfer him/her at a particular place. It
is for the employer to transfer an employee considering the
requirement".
Thus, it is clear that no employee can claim for his posting at a
particular place.
So far as the question of representation is concerned, in the light
of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015)
MP 2556, it is directed that in case if the petitioner submits his joining
at his transferred place, then his representation shall be considered in
accordance with law. Needless to mention here that the direction to
decide the representation should not be construed as a direction to
allow the representation and the representation shall be decided
strictly in accordance with law without getting influenced or
prejudiced by this order.
Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the
case, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out
warranting interference in the impugned transfer order.
Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
Judge
(alok)
ALOK KUMAR
2021.09.18
12:38:38 +05'30'
