Vipin Ghanghoriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14098 MP

                                   1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                        ON THE 1st OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 23898 of 2022

        BETWEEN:-
        VIPIN GHANGHORIYA S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR
        GHANGHORIYA, AGED 27 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
        FOREST GUARD, RESIDENT OF BHADORIYA KI
        KHIDKI, DISTRICT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                   .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI GAURAV MISHRA - ADVOCATE)

        AND
1.      STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
        FOREST,   VALLABH   BHAWAN,  BHOPAL
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.      THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, GENERAL
        FOREST, DIVISION DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                              .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI N.S. TOMAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                    ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

(1) That, the impugned order dated 28.09.2022 Annexure P-1 may kindly be quashed/set aside in the interest of justice.

(2) That, any other suitable writ order or direction for doing justice in the matter may kindly be issued. Cost may kindly be

awarded.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working as Forest Guard and at present he is posted in Datia from the date of his appointment i.e. approximately six years. His wife made an application to the Forest Minister for transfer of the petitioner to somewhere else in Gwalior Division or out of Gwalior Division, so that he may reside separately from her step mother as well as his family members.

It is submitted that accordingly, by impugned order dated 28.9.2022 the petitioner has been transferred to Ratapani Abhayaran Forest Division Obedullahganj District Raisen. It is submitted that the order under challenge has

not been issued in administrative exigency but it has been issued on the complaint made by the wife of the petitioner and, accordingly, he has filed I.A.No.7679/2022 for impleading his wife as respondent No.3 and he has also filed I.A.No.7680/2022 by which he has disclosed the source of the representation made by his wife Annexure P/2. It is fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that wife of the petitioner is staying in Bhopal and thus the petitioner has been transferred to a place which is nearer to his in-laws house.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that the petitioner has already spent six long years of his posting at Datia. Even according to the transfer policy, every attempt is made by the State Government to place the husband and wife at a same place, so that their family life can be saved. The petitioner has been transferred to Obedullahganj whereas the wife of the petitioner is residing in Bhopal and thus apparently it appears that only intention behind the impugned

order is to transfer the petitioner to the place where his wife is residing. There appears to be some family dispute and being a model employer, it is the duty of the employer to look into the grievances of the employee and their family members. Thus no malafide can be attributed behind the impugned order.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

I.A.No.7679/2022 has been filed for impleading the wife of the petitioner as respondent No.3.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Let amendment be carried out within a period of three working days.

The basic grievance of the petitioner is that he has been transferred to Obedullahganj merely on the application made by his wife in which she has mentioned that she is being tortured by the petitioner and her in-laws and she is residing in her parental home for the last one and half years along with her minor child.

Even according to the transfer policy, the effort of the employer is to keep the husband and wife at a same place. Thus, the family life of the employee is also one of the consideration for their transfer. From the complaint/application filed by the wife of the petitioner it is clear that she is residing in her parental home for the last one and half years and if she has made an application for transfer of the petitioner either to Gwalior Division or out of

Gwalior and the transfer of the petitioner to Obedullahganj which is quite nearer to Bhopal, then it cannot be said that the respondent has acted in an arbitrary manner because by transferring the petitioner to Obedullahganj an attempt has been made to post him to a place which is quite nearer to his matrimonial house.

It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in case if he is transferred to Obedullahganj, then he would not be in a position to look after his

step mother and other family members.

So far as this contention is concerned, since the petitioner has married his wife after following rituals of Saptpadi, then he has a divine duty towards his wife also. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to strike balance between the rights of his wife as well as the rights of his parents. If the petitioner is continuously visiting with his matrimonial house to see his wife, then he can always visit his parental home to see his parents also.

Be that whatever it may.

It is well established principle of law that this Court cannot interfere unless and until the transfer order suffers from malafides. Furthermore, it is for the employer to consider the grievances of the employee and his family members. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority specifically when the petitioner has already spent long six years at Datia.

At this stage, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that he may be granted liberty to make a representation against his transfer order.

In the light of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556, it is directed that after submitting his joining if the petitioner submits a representation, then the same shall be decided in accordance with law without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order.

With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.11.01 17:19:11 +05'30'