Ravikant Baraiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 14178 MP

                                  1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
             HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
                        ON THE 2nd OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 24008 of 2022

        BETWEEN:-
        RAVIKANT    BARAIYA   S/O    LATE   SHRI
        RAMSWAROOP BARAIYA, AGE 58 YEARS,
        OCCUPATION:    POSTED     AS    DISTRICT
        PROSECUTION OFFICER, SHEOPUR (MADHYA
        PRADESH) R/O COLLECTOR COLONY, SHEOPUR
        (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                .....PETITIONER
        (BY SHRI AMIT LAHOTI - ADVOCATE)

        AND
1.      THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
        PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
        MANTRALAYA, GOVERNMENT OF MADHYA
        PRADESH, VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL.

2.      THE UNDER SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT,
        STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH, VALLABH
        BHAWAN, BHOPAL.

3.      THE     DIRECTOR PUBLIC  PROSECUTION,
        DIRECTORATE OF PROSECUTION, STATE OF
        MADHYA    PRADESH,  BHOPAL  (MADHYA
        PRADESH)

                                                             .....RESPONDENTS
        (BY SHRI DEVENDRA CHAUBEY - 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:

7.1 That, order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by

respondent No.2 so far as it relates to the petitioner may kindly be quashed.

7.2 That, any other relief(s) to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice.

7.3 That, cost of the petition may also be awarded.

The petitioner is working as DPO Sheopur since 2014. It appears that the petitioner has made a representation to Director, Public Prosecution for his transfer to any place near Gwalior because he is suffering from diabetes and his

wife is also not keeping well. It is submitted that inspite of transferring the petitioner to the place of his choice mentioned in the representation dated 13.9.2022, he has been transferred to Shahdol.

Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and no one can claim that he should be posted at a particular place. The facility to give choice is not binding on the employer and the employer has to accommodate the employee if the administrative exigency permits. The petitioner has already spent nine long years of his tenure at Sheopur.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner claims that he is suffering from diabetes and his wife is not keeping well. Thus, the basic concern of the petitioner is that he must get better treatment. The personal inconvenience/difficulties of an employee cannot be looked into by this Court because this Court cannot act as an appellate authority and it is for the employer to consider the same.

Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in the light of the judgment

passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556, in which it has been held that making a representation would not give any substantive right in favour of the employee and the representation can be considered only after he submits his joining at the transferred place. Therefore, it is directed that in case if the petitioner submits his joining at Shahdol and makes his supplementary representation along with certified copy of this order for modification of his transfer order, then the same shall be considered by the respondents without getting influenced or prejudiced by this Court.

(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE (alok)

ALOK KUMAR 2022.11.02 17:19:14 +05'30'