Shyam Kumar Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5436 MP

                                                           1
                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                         BEFORE
                                           HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                  ON THE 13th OF APRIL, 2022

                                            WRIT PETITION No. 8470 of 2022

                               Between:-
                               SHYAM KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE SHRI ANANT
                               PRATAP SINGH , AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/A
                               COMMISSIONER     MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                               BURHANPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                          .....PETITIONER
                               (SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL, LEARNED SENIOR ADVOCATE ALONG
                               WITH SHRI RISHAB SINGH, ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITONER)

                               AND

                      1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
                               AND HOUSING DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA
                               BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                      2.       SHRI      SANJAY       MEHTA ADDITIONAL
                               COMMISSIONER    MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
                               GWALIOR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                       .....RESPONDENTS
                               (SMT. SHRADDHA TIWARI, PANEL LAWYER FOR STATE)
                               (SHRI TEJ KUMAR MODH, COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT
                               NO.2/CAVEATOR

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

This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated 07.04.2022 whereby petitioner who was working as a Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur is transferred to the post of Joint Director, Directorate of Urban Administration and Development, Bhopal and in his place private respondent No.2 who was working as Additional Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Gwalior has been posted.

Petitioner has preliminary taken two grounds to assail the impugned order of transfer; first ground is that petitioner is going to superannuate in four months time on 31.08.2022. Second ground is that petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers.

Signature
 SAN      Not
Verified

Petitioner was transferred from the post of Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Digitally signed by MOHD TABISH KHAN Ratlam to the post of Joint Director, Urban Administration and Development, Date: 2022.04.18 18:42:13 IST

Rewa vide order dated 09.07.2020. Vide order dated 4.06.2021 he was transferred as Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Burhanpur. Thereafter, when he had hardly put in about ten months of time at Burhanpur he is transferred out of Burhanpur to Bhopal.

It is submitted that impugned decision is contrary to para 22 of the transfer policy dated 24.06.2021.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in case of B.Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and Others, 1986(4) SCC 131. It is submitted that Supreme Court has deprecated frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers which have potential to uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a government servant and drive him to desperation. Supreme Court has held that it disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralization.

Reading this judgment it is submitted that petitioner who is left with four months to superannuate will face numerous problems as in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 57 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Pension Rules, 1976 preparation of pension papers start two year prior to the date of superannuation. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is also going to superannuate a month later then the present petitioner and, therefore, impugned order of transfer be stayed or quashed.

Shri Tej Kumar Modh, learned counsel for the private respondent/caveator submits that he has filed documents vide I.A. No.7765/2022 showing that respondent No.2 was relieved from Gwalior on 07.04.2022 and submitted his joining at Burhanpur on 08.04.2022. It is submitted that since respondent no.2 has already join at Burhanpur, therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in the present petition.

Smt. Shraddha Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer for the State submits that transfer is exigency of service and there is no violation of transfer policy which is even otherwise not justiciable.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it

is evident that frequency of transfer is about one year. Post of Chief Municipal Commissioner is a sensitive post. It is also true that undue long stay at a particular place aids in development of vested interest. Even, otherwise it is the State Government which is the employer of the petitioner and it is in the best position to adjudge suitability of a particular person to be posted at a particular place. Petitioner cannot claim any vested interest or right to continue on a particular place.

Petitioner has neither pleaded malafides nor has been able to demonstrate that impugned order of transfer has been issued by any incompetent authority, which are two main grounds for assailing a transfer order. Petitioner has also not

been able to demonstrate that any of his children are studying at Burhanpur and their studies will be disrupted. Petitioner has also not brought on record instance of any other complication or problem which may cause hardship and demoralization accept that he is going to superannuate in a short while.

Thus, it is evident that in absence of malafide and lack of authority, impugned order cannot be said to be illegal or void calling for any interference specially when private respondent has already joint at the transferred place. Any indulgence at this stage will cause multiplicity of litigation, therefore, petition fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Tabish