Dilip Kumar Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5294 MP

                                                                     1
                                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT JABALPUR
                                                             BEFORE
                                               HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                         ON THE 11th OF APRIL, 2022

                                                  WRIT PETITION No. 7895 of 2022

                                 Between:-
                                 DILIP KUMAR TRIPATHI S/O SHRI ROSHAN LAL
                                 TRIPATHI , AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                                 SUB ENGINEER INCHARGE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
                                 MIG-11/6/92 INDIRA NAGAR REWA (MADHYA
                                 PRADESH)

                                                                                                        .....PETITIONER
                                 (BY SHRI JAI SHUKLA, ADVOCATE)

                                 AND

                      1.         THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
                                 BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.         UPPER SECRETARY URBAN AND HOUSING
                                 DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL (M.P.)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      3.         ENGINEER IN CHIEF URBAN AND HOUSING
                                 D EPARTM EN T 3RD FLOOR, SHIVAJI NAGAR,
                                 BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      4.         SHIV KUMAR GARG, SUB ENGINEER NAGAR
                                 PALIKA NIGAM KATNI DISTT. KATNI (M.P.)
                                 (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SHRI AMIT MISHRA, PL FOR STATE )

                              T h is petition coming on for hearing this day, the court passed the
                      following:
                                                                      ORDER

Shri Jai Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Amit Mishra, learned PL for the respondent/State.

Petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 29/03/2022 (Annexure P-1), whereby petitioner has been transferred, who is working as Sub Engineer from Nagar Palika Nigam, Rewa to Nagar Palika Nigam, Katni on deputation, whereas the respondent no.4 has been posted in his place.

Petitioner main grounds are two folds, namely petitioner is suffering from 40% disability and secondly Signature SAN Not Verified there are vacant posts available at Rewa, therefore, petitioner be adjusted at Rewa. Further submits Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR that petitioner's transfer has been made during the ban period and also submits that there is Full Bench SALUNKE Date: 2022.04.12 10:34:26 IST

judgment to the effect that if person transferred from one local body to another on deputation then his concurrence should be taken.

However, Shri Amit Mishra, learned PL submits that 40% disability as mentioned in Clause 26 of the transfer policy dated 24th June, 2021 is in relation to the whole body, whereas disability certificate reveals that petitioner is suffering from POC right neck femer C Hip BL and 40% is disability in relation

to particular part of the body and not in relation to the whole body.

It is submitted that there is a provision in Clause 50 of the transfer policy for making representation and if petitioner so wishes he may make representation to the competent authority. It is further submitted that petitioner is working on Class-III post of Sub Engineer for transferring the class-III employee concurrence of concerned minister in-charge is sufficient and in the present case, concurrence of said minister was obtained before sending petitioner to Katni.

Shri Amit Mishra submits that admittedly petitioner is Sub Engineer of State cadre. As per provision contained in Fundamental Rule 110 for sending petitioner on deputation from one government entity to another, his concurrence is not required.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is evident that Clause 50 of the transfer policy provides for a representation to be made and that representation is to be decided as per procedure laid down in the Clause 50.

In view of said facts, since it is open to the employer to transfer the petitioner to a particular place, without commenting on merits, it is directed that in case petitioner moves a representation before the competent authority as per stipulation in the transfer policy within three working days from today along with an application for stay along with copy of this order passed today then said authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner as well as stay application within further period of 15 days.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.

In above terms, petition is disposed off.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE tarun