Madhya Pradesh High Court
Atmaram Saket vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 14 October, 2022
Author: Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 14th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 23288 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ATMARAM SAKET S/O SHRI LALANRAM
SAKET, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SERVICE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY OF GRAM
PANCHAYAT PONDI 3 JANPAD PANCHAYAT
CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI M.P. SHUKLA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. THE COLLECTOR S I N G R A U L I DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JILA
PANCHAYAT SINGRAULI DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER JANPAD
PANCHAYAT CHITRANGI DISTRICT SINGRAULI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
5. SHRI HARICHARAN BAIS PANCHAYAT
SECRETARY GRAM PANCHAYAT JHARKATIYA
JANPAD PANCHAYAT CHITRANGI DISTRICT
SINGRAULI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(SHRI SWAPNIL GANGULY - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR
RESPONDENT NOS. 1 TO 4)
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/14/2022
7:29:08 PM
2
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed challenging the validity, legality and propriety of the order dated
04.10.2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.3, whereby the
petitioner has been transferred from Gram Panchayat Pondi - 3, Janpad
Panchyat Chitrangi, District Singrauli to Gram Panchayat Jharkatiya, Janpad
Panchyat Chitrangi, District Singrauli.
It is pointed out that the petitioner was recently transferred in December,
2021 at the present place of posting and within a short period one year, he has
again been transferred by the impugned order only to accommodate the
respondent No.5 that too at the behest of local MLA. It is submitted that a
representation (Annexure P/3) has been filed, which is pending consideration.
An innocuous prayer is made to direct the respondents/authorities to consider
and decide the pending representation expeditiously.
Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer and
submitted that the petitioner's transfer is on administrative grounds and is a
service condition; therefore, the petitioner is duty bound to comply with the
transfer order. He has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v.
State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul
Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP
2556 and has submitted that in violation of condition of transfer policy, the
only remedy available to the petitioner is to get his representation decided at an
early date.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/14/2022
7:29:08 PM
F ro m the perusal of the record, it is seen that the petitioner was
transferred at the present place of posting in the year 2021 and within a short
span of one year by the impugned order, he has again been transferred.
As far as allegation with respect to recommendation of local MLA is
concerned, no document has been filed to show that the transfer has been made
on the basis of the recommendation of the local MLA. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 has held as under:
"In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is
correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA,
that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. After all, it is the
duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express
the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an
official the State government is certainly within its jurisdiction to
transfer such an employee. There can be no hard and fast rule that
every transfer at the instance of an M.P. or MLA would be vitiated. It
all depends on the facts & circumstances of an individual case. In
the present case, we see no infirmity in the impugned transfer order."
The law with respect to transfers is settled by the Division Bench of this
Court in the case of R.S.Chaudhary (supra), wherein the Division Bench of
this Court has observed as under:-
"Transfer Policy formulated by State is not enforceable as
employee does not have a right and Courts have limited jurisdiction to
interfere in the order of transfer. Court can interfere in case of mandatory
statutory rule or action is capricious, malicious, cavalier and fanciful. In
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/14/2022
7:29:08 PM
case of violation of policy, proper remedy is to approach authorities by
pointing out violation and authorities to deal with the same keeping in mind
the policy guidelines."
In Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), the Division Bench of this Court
has observed as under:-
"Transfer of a Government servant appointed to a particular
cadre of transferable posts from one place to other is an incident of
service. No Government servant or employee of public undertaking
has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from
one place to other is generally a condition of service and the
employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to
other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the Public
Administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred, he must
comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in
proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the
competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the
transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified, or
cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the order of
transfer. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance to the
transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under
the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The
respondent lost his service as he refused to comply with the order of
his transfer from one place to the other."
Thus, as per the settled legal proposition of law rendered in
R.S.Chaudhary (supra) & Mridul Kumar Sharma (supra), the only relief
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/14/2022
7:29:08 PM
which can be granted to the petitioner is to file a representation before the
competent authority for redressal of his grievances and such representation can
be directed to be considered & decided at an early date.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and the order
passed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid cases, this Court deems it
appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the petitioner to file a
certified copy of this order along with copy of representation before the
respondent no.3, who in turn, is directed to dwell upon the same and pass a
self contained speaking order and communicate the outcome to the petitioner
within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order.
Needless to mention that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed off.
Certified copy as per rules.
(VISHAL MISHRA)
JUDGE
sj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: SUSHEEL
KUMAR JHARIYA
Signing time: 10/14/2022
7:29:08 PM
