Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh Singh vs Director General on 6 May, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
ON THE 6th OF MAY, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 26194 of 2021
Between:-
RAJESH SINGH S/O ALDAL SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE
384/2 BAJRANG COLONY NORTH CIVIL LINES
DISTT. JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI AJAY PAL SINGH, ADVOCATE )
AND
DIRECTOR GENERAL RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE RAIL BHAWAN
1.
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
SENIOR DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY
2. PROTECTION FORCE WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR MP
(MADHYA PRADESH)
CHAIRMAN RAILWAY BOARD MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN,
3.
NEW DELHI (DELHI)
INSPECTOR, CONTROL ROOM RPF WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY
4.
JABALPUR MP (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE FOR THE RESPONDENTS )
ORDER
Shri Ajay Pal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
None present for the respondents.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.05.12 21:33:42 PDT
This writ petition is filed being aggrieved of order dated
25/06/2021 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Senior Divisional Security
Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, Jabalpur, whereby
petitioner, whose name appears at serial no.15 and who was working
as Head Constable in D.S.C.R, Jabalpur is posted to Satna.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is
challenging this order of transfer on the ground that there was ban
on the transfer as is evident from Annexure P-1 issued by the
Government of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) dated
31/03/2021, wherein it is provided that in view of ongoing pendamic
situation competent authority decided that the periodical transfer
orders of the staff working on sensitive posts be pended till 30 th June,
2021.
It is submitted that this order was extended till 30 th
September, 2021 vide order dated 22 nd June, 2021 (Annexure P-2),
thus, it is submitted that petitioner's transfer is effected during the
ban period. Second ground is that petitioner's wife is working in
clerical cadre in the establishment of Railway Protection Force at
Jabalpur and as per policy of the respondents, husband and wife
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.05.12 21:33:42 PDT
should be posted at the same place, therefore, on that ground also
petitioner's transfer is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that he executed
the transfer and after executing the transfer, he is seeking
indulgence of the respondents in terms of the policy dated
02/02/2010 enclosed by him along with the rejoinder as Annexure P-
Though nobody is appearing for the respondents but their
return is perused, and it is evident from the return that petitioner
had completed more than 10 years continuous service at Jabalpur,
hence transfer order was passed in the interest of administration. It
is further mentioned in the return that there is no allegation of
malice or violation of any statutory rules, thus transfer order does
not call for any interference.
Placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court, in
case of Union of India & others Vs. Muralidhara Menon & an-
other, 2009 (9) SCC 304 wherein it is held that transfer is an
incident of service and employee has no right to continue at a
particular place, it is mentioned that no indulgence be shown in the
matter.
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.05.12 21:33:42 PDT
After hearing submissions of learned counsel for the
petitioner and taking pleadings into consideration, it is evident that
Annexure P-1 and Annexure P-2 deals with those officers/employees,
who are working on sensitive posts. Petitioner has not been able to
bring on record that he was working on a sensitive post. Secondly,
petitioner already executed the transfer order. Thirdly, the policy in
regard to spouse as a caveat is concerned, petitioner himself has
enclosed Annexure P-4, which is RPF Establishment Manual, 2019,
which clearly provides that "while transferring members of the Force
from one station to another, the fact that his/her spouse is posted at a
particular station, if brought to notice by the concerned RPF
personnel, should be duly taken into consideration and working
couple should be posted at the same or nearest station, as far as
possible, but within the constraints of the administrative and
operational feasibilies". Thus, it is evident that petitioner is posted to
the nearest station i.e. Satna, which is about 200 Km away from
Jabalpur having direct railway link. Petitioner's counsel admits that
there is no post available for his wife at Satna.
In view of such facts, it cannot be said that there has been
any violation of the policy in regard to the spouse. Policy provides for
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.05.12 21:33:42 PDT
compulsory transfer after 10 years of stay at a station and when
viewed in that light, then also order of transfer cannot be faulted
with.
As far as issue of allegation of malafide or the competency of
the authority effecting the transfer is concerned, there are no
pleading in this regard. Thus, in absence of such pleadings and
transfer being an incident of service, that cannot be questioned on
account of personal inconveniences. It is administrative exigency
which is of utmost importance. Accordingly, when tested on aforesaid
touch stone, petition is devoid of merit, deserves to be and is
dismissed.
(Vivek Agarwal)
Judge
tarun/
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by TARUN KUMAR
SALUNKE
Date: 2022.05.12 21:33:42 PDT
