Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kuldeep Choubey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 17 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
1 WP-18743-2021
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-18743-2021
(KULDEEP CHOUBEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-09-2021
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Petitioner in person.
It is informed that the arguing counsel is not well therefore, petitioner
wants to argue in person, permitted to argue.
Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
Challenge being made to transfer order dated 16.07.2021 whereby, the
petitioner working as a Project Officer, has been transferred to Project Office
Majholi tp District Sidhi at a distance of approximately 400 kms.
It is submitted that he has already submitted a detailed representation to
respondent authorities but the same is kept pending and not yet decided till
date and now after a lapse of almost three months authorities have relieved the
petitioner yesterday. He further submits that his wife is suffering from Rumor
Arthritis and he is the only one to look after her and during covid-19 he was
transferred to Sidhi. In such circumstances, interference in transfer order is
prayed for. It is prayed that the authorities be directed to decide the pending
representation in fixed time.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the petitioner has been to a distance of 400 Kms. It is argued
that the transfer is a condition of service therefore, no interference is
warranted. Transfer order can only be interfered in certain conditions, in case
of mandatory statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and
fanciful. He has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of
M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar
Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556
Signature Not and has submitted that the only remedy available to the petitioner is to file a
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.17
18:18:47 IST
2 WP-18743-2021
representation before the competent authority for redressal of his grievances.
He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
On perusal of the record, it is seen that that the petitioner has been
transferred to 400 Kms. The law in respect to transfer of an employee is
settled in the aforesaid cases, wherein the Division Bench of this Court in the
case of R.S.Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR
(2007) MP 1329 has held as under :-
"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as
employee does not have a right and courts have limited
jurisdiction to interfere in the order of transfer. Court can
interfere in case of mandatory statutory rule or action is
capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In case of
violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach authorities
by pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the
same keeping in mind the policy guidelines."
The Division Bench of this Court in Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs.
State of M.P. Reported in I.L.R (2015) MP 2556, has held as under :
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular
cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an
incident of service. No Government servant or employee of
public undertaking has legal right for being posted at any
particular place. Transfer from one place to other is
generally a condition of service and the employee has no
choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is
necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public
Administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he
must comply with the order but if there be any genuine
difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make
representation to the competent authority for stay,
modification, or cancellation of the transfer order. If the
order of transfer is not stayed, modified, or cancelled the
concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer.
If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the transfer
order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under
the relevant Rules, as has happened in the instant case. The
respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the
order of his transfer from one place to the other".
Signature Not Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, as well as
SAN
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.17
18:18:47 IST
3 WP-18743-2021
the law laid down in the aforesaid cases and also the fact that the petitioner
has been relieved yesterday only therefore, this Court deems it appropriate to
dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to resubmit a
detailed representation to the respondents No.1 and No.2 within a period of
seven days and in turn the respondents No.1 and No.2 are directed to dwell
upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order within a
period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and
communicate the outcome to the petitioner.
Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on
the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
Sha
Signature
SAN Not
Verified
Digitally signed by
SMT SHALINI
SINGH LANDGE
Date: 2021.09.17
18:18:47 IST
