Geeta Jha Disoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5596 MP

                                          1



              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                        Writ Petition No.18675 of 2021
             (Geeta Jha Disoriya Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another)

Jabalpur, Dated :17.09.2021
      Shri Rahul Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri      Mukund      Chourasiya,       learned    panel   lawyer      for    the

respondents/State.

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

Challenge is being made to the order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the

petitioner has been transferred from the office of Commissioner-cum-

Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal to office of Joint

Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sagar at a

distant of more than 170 Kms.

The solitary ground for challenging the transfer order is that the

petitioner is at the fag end of her service career and is due to retire on

13.12.2022. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the

transfer at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner is violative of

condition of the transfer policy. He has placed reliance upon the orders

passed by this Court on 22.07.2020 in Writ Petition No.9658/2020 [Dr.

Jasram Trivedia Vs. State of M.P.] wherein, this Court considering the

fact that the transfer is violative of Clause 11.8 of the transfer policy as

the petitioner was transferred at the fag end of his service career has

interfered in the transfer order and disposed of the writ petition directing

the respondents to decide the pending representation and till the decision

on the representation, the petitioner was permitted to continue at the

present place of posting.

He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of Ripudaman Singh Yadav Vs. State of

M.P. and others reported in 2019 SCC Online MP 1658 wherein

considering Article 38(1) of the Constitution of India, the Court has held

as under :-

"4. For a public servant to strive towards excellence, it is of utmost importance that fair and equitable opportunities are made available by the State. One of the means to achieve this goal of providing equitable opportunities by the State is to make available healthy and stress-free working environment for a public servant. A stress-free working environment is inter alia possible when the State, functioning as an employer, while effecting transfers takes into account not only the administrative exigencies/public interest but also the genuine personal problems of the public servant liable to be transferred. A balance has to be struck by the employer which is though difficult but not impossible to achieve. Every government in it's capacity as an employer owes it to its employees. If this balance between the administrative exigency and personal inconvenience is kept in mind before every event of transfer, the cause of heart burning amongst public servants under transfer would reduce to the minimum thereby creating a healthy and congenial atmosphere between the employer and employees which in turn contributes greatly to the over all development of the particular institution and as well as the nation."

He has prayed for similar relief to be granted to her as she has

already preferred a representation to the respondents, the same is pending

consideration and not being taken care of till date. It is submitted by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been relieved

till date.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and

submitted that the transfer policy provides that the employee who is

generally at the fag end of his service career i.e. only one year is

remaining from his date of retirement, he should not generally be

transferred. In the present case, the petitioner is due to retire almost after

15-16 months, therefore, the aforesaid clause is not applicable to the case

of the petitioner and the transfer is not violative of any of the terms and

conditions of the transfer policy, even the transfer is a condition of service

and the employee like petitioner is required to comply with the transfer

orders, but he could not dispute the fact that in similar matter interference

has been made by this Court considering Article 38(1) of the Constitution

of India and also the fact that the petitioner is due to retire within 15-16

months.

In such circumstances, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of

this writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to re-submit a detailed

representation to the respondent No.1 within a period of seven days and in

turn, the respondent No.1 is directed to dwell upon the representation and

pass a self contained speaking order in the said representation and the

outcome be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 30 days

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; and if the petitioner

has not been relieved till date, she may be permitted to continue at the

present place of posting i.e. in the office of Commissioner-cum-Registrar,

Cooperative Societies, Bhopal, till the decision on the representation.

Needless to mention here that this Court has not commented upon

the merits of the case.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition stands disposed of.

(Vishal Mishra) Judge

AM.

Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.09.21 12:41:39 +05'30'