Mahesh Kumar Rai vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5918 MP

                                                           1                              WP-19527-2021
                                The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                           WP-19527-2021
                                  (MAHESH KUMAR RAI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      2
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 23-09-2021
                               Heard through Video Conferencing.
                               Shri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                               Shri Amit Pandey, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.

Challenge is being made to transfer order dated 27.08.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby, the petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil

office Rehli to Tehsil Office Bina, District Sagar. The ground raised by the petitioner for challenging the transfer order dated 27.08.2021 is contrary to the transfer policy.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred at the distance of 125 kms. He is having old aged mother about 95 years of age. No male person in the family to take care of her. She is fully dependent upon the petitioner. It is submitted that the transfer order is contrary to the clauses of the transfer policy. Therefore, he has preferred a detailed representation to respondent no.2 which is pending for consideration and not being decided till

date. An innocuous prayer is made, till the decision on the representation, she may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting i.e.Tehsil office Rehli.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and submitted that the transfer is condition of service and the Government employee is bound to comply with the transfer order. The petitioner has raised the ground common transfer order has been passed for transferring the employee on administrative grounds as well as on request but he could not point out any prejudice caused to him by this order as he could not demonstrate the fact that any incumbent who has been transferred in his place on his own request. Thus aforesaid ground is of no help to the

Signature Not petitioner, regarding old age of his mother counsel for the petitioner has not SAN Verified

Digitally signed by AKANKSHA MAURYA Date: 2021.09.25 11:35:14 IST 2 WP-19527-2021 filed any document according to the ailment of the mother. In such circumstances, the only relief which can be granted to the petitioner is that his pending representation should be decided in view of the judgment passed by t h e R.S.Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2 5 5 6 . He submits that his representation should be

decided within a period of 15 days.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, it is seen that petitioner has been transferred at a short distance of 125 kms from Tehsil office Rehli to Tehsil Office Bina, District Sagar, the petitioner could not show that any prejudice has been caused to him by this transfer order. He could not demonstrate that fact that any incumbent who has been transferred in his place on his own request. Thus any of the ground which has been raised according to the transfer is of no help of the petitioner. As far as the age of the mother is concerned, no medical document is filed.

In such circumstances, and in view of the judgments of the Division Bench in the case of R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556, this Court is not inclined to grant interim relief to the petitioner. However, in the interest of justice, the petition is dispose of with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to respondent No.2 within a period of seven days and in turn respondent No.2 is directed to dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking order within a period of 15 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.

With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Date: 2021.09.25
11:35:14 IST
                             3         WP-19527-2021




                                (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                     JUDGE


                      Akm




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
AKANKSHA
MAURYA
Date: 2021.09.25
11:35:14 IST