Kamlesh Sharma (K P Sharma) vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 5987 MP

                                                       1                               WP-19955-2021
                             The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                        WP-19955-2021
                          (KAMLESH SHARMA (K P SHARMA) Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                      2
                      Jabalpur, Dated : 24-09-2021
                            Heard through Video Conferencing.

                            Shri Praveen Dubey, learned counsel for petitioner.
                            Shri    Dharmendra      Kaurav,      learned     Panel     Lawyer       for
                      respondents/State.

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging transfer order dated

31/08/2021. By impugned transfer order, petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Corporation, Satna to Municipal Corporation, Katni on deputation.

It is submitted by the petitioner that petitioner can be transferred in accordance with Rule 14 of Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporations Appointment and Condition of Service of Officers and Servant Rules, 2000. As per Rules 14 subject to provision of Section 58 of the Act, State Government may transfer of an employee of Corporation from one

Corporation to another provided that such officer or employee who is in Corporation for more than two years may necessarily be transferred by the State Government. Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Indore Nagar Nigam Karamchari Vs. State of M.P. & another reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 449 and paragraph 11 reads as under:-

11. In this back ground, we are of the view that Section 58(5) and (6) of the Act are not ultra virus and it is valid. But this power should be exercised with great caution and while transferring the employee from one Corporation to another, there should be a valid reason. Since the lien of incumbent is kept in the parent Corporation, therefore, tenure or the period of lien should be specified and it should not be for all time to come. The State Government should also exercised Signature SAN Verified Not this power very sparingly in exceptional case as observed by Digitally signed by RASHMI RONALD VICTOR Date: 2021.09.25 11:09:35 IST 2 WP-19955-2021 their Lordships of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Shankerlal (supra).

On basis of aforesaid, it is submitted that transfer order is passed contrary to rules and law laid down by Division Bench. It is submitted that he had preferred a representation before the Secretary/respondent No.1 but the same has not been considered and decided.

Counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that respondent be directed to consider and decide his representation.

Learned Panel Lawyer for State submitted that representation of petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law.

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation of petitioner within a period of 30 days by passing reasonable and speaking orders.

Meanwhile, petitioner may be permitted to continue at Municipal Corporation, Satna.

No opinion is expressed on the merits of the case. With the aforesaid direction, writ petition is disposed of. C.C. as per rules.

                                                                            (VISHAL DHAGAT)
                                                                                 JUDGE


                      RS




Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Digitally signed by
RASHMI RONALD
VICTOR
Date: 2021.09.25
11:09:35 IST