Smt. Shalini Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15574 MP

                                    1
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                          AT GWALIOR
                                BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
                        ON THE 25th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                    WRIT PETITION No. 26578 of 2022

         BETWEEN:-
         SMT.     SHALINI     SHARMA   W/O   SHRI
         RADHESHYAM SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 27
         Y E A R S , OCCUPATION:  SERVICE  TASHIL
         POHARI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                  .....PETITIONER
         (BY SHRI AJEET SHARMA - ADVOCATE )

         AND
1.       THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL
         SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (M.P.)
         (MADHYA PRADESH)

2.       THE   COMMISSIONER   , LAND              RECORDS
         GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                               .....RESPONDENTS
         (BY SHRI G.P. CHAURASIYA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )

      This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                     ORDER

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

(i) That, the present petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed;

(ii) That, the respondents authorities may kindly be directed to decide the applications submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P/1, P/2 and P/8 within the time as stipulated by this Hon'ble Court and may kindly be directed to the respondents to post the petitioner in District Morena where the husband of the petitioner is working as Patwari in the interest of justice.

(iii) That, any other just, suitable and proper relief, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit, may also kindly be granted to the petitioner. Costs be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.

I t is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is working on the post of Partwari and at present is posted in District Shivpuri whereas her husband is also working on the post of Patwari and he is posted in District Morena. The petitioner was posted in District Shivpuri in the year 2018 and she got married in the year 2020 and is blessed with a baby child. In the year 2021 she filed an application for her transfer to Morena where her husband is posted on her own request but it remained undecided. In the year 2022 also she made an application for her transfer to Morena on her own request, but it

has also not been addressed so far and recently list of transfer of Patwaris has been issued and she has not been transferred and thus, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to decide the representation of the petitioner because as per the transfer policy husband and wife are generally to be kept at the same place.

P er contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that since, the order of transfer of Patwaris have been issued and the petitioner had not been transferred, therefore, it has to be presumed that the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is the case of the petitioner that husband of the petitioner is posted in District Morena and petitioner is living with minor child, namely, Chahal Sharma at Shivpuri. There is no one to look-after the child and due to this fact she is not able to perform her duties, therefore, she wants to be posted at the place where her husband is posted so that better care of her child would be taken. As per

clause 1.2.1 of Circular dated 30.09.2022 whereby guidelines had been issued in pursuance to the Absorption scheme for the year 2022 for the Patwaris wherein applications for posting of husband and wife are to be considered for the same district and the authorities should consider the case of the petitioner in the light thereof.

Although, the Circular and the Absorption Scheme for the year 2022 are not enforceable by law but in the light of judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of SK Nausad Rahaman & Ors Vs. Union of India by judgment dated 10/3/2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.1243/2022 as well as the judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court Ripudaman Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others by order dated 16/7/2019 passed in Writ Appeal no.1141/2019, every efforts should be made by the State Government to save the family life of an employee.

Under these circumstances, there cannot be a deemed rejection of the application for voluntary transfer and the authorities are under obligation to decide the representation by passing a speaking order. Under these circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner and to pass a speaking order either accepting or rejecting the same.

Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two weeks from

the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.

(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU SHASHANK 2022.11.29 18:40:42 +05'30'