Arvind Kumar Mehra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 12992 MP

                                                             1
                           IN    THE        HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                           BEFORE
                                                     JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL
                                               ON THE 10 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 23661 of 2021

                          BETWEEN:-
                          ARVIND KUMAR MEHRA S/O SHRI GOPAL SINGH
                          MEHRA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          ASSISTANT BLOCK MANAGER MP STATE LIVELIHOOD
                          MISSION BLOCK SOHAGPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI B.K. MISHRA - ADVOCATE )

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

                          2.    CHIEF   EXECUTIVE  OFFICER    MP   STATE
                                LIVELIHOOD MISSION DISTT.BHOPAL (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                          3.    THE       COLLECTOR       HOSHANGABAD
                                DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT
                                HOSHANGABAD DISTT.HOSHANGABAD (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI RITWIK PARASHAR - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

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

With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. In this petition filed under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 3:53:32 PM

challenge is mounted by the petitioner to the transfer order dated 12.10.2021 whereby he is transferred from Sohagpur to Babai.

The singular attack on the transfer order is based on Clause 9.1 of the Transfer Policy dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure P-3) which shows that there is no provision for transfer of a contractual employee. Contractual employee is being appointed for a particular place and particular work. However, in administrative exigency in special circumstances, such contractual employee can be transferred.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither in the impugned order nor in the reply, any such special circumstance or administrative exigency

has been shown. Thus, in view of Division Bench Judgment passed in W.A No.281 of 2021 (Seema Pasi Vs. State of M.P.) (Annexure P-4), the transfer order deserves to be interfered with. It is further argued that same Clause 9.1 of the Transfer Policy was considered in the case of Seema Pasi (supra).

Shri Ritwik Parashar, learned G.A. for the State supported the transfer order but on a specific query from the Bench fairly admitted that policy dated 24.02.2020 and Clause 9.1 applicable in the instant matter, was subject matter of consideration in the case of Seema Pasi (supra). He also candidly admitted that in the reply so filed, no such special reasons for transfer have been assigned.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties. The Division Bench in Seema Pasi (supra) opined as under:-

"1 0 . The respondents have utterly failed to demonstrate the special circumstances and administrative exigencies, to transfer the appellant from Jabalpur to Anuppur. The learned Single Judge has observed that the service of the appellant being a contractual employee, is transferable. It is not in dispute that the services of contractual employees can be transferred as per clause 9.1 of the Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 3:53:32 PM

Circular dated 24-02-2020, but only in special circumstances and administrative exigencies, and not otherwise. The answering respondents have failed to show either administrative exigency or special circumstances, to transfer the appellant from Jabalpur to Anuppur.

11. In view of the aforesaid factual backdrop, we find that the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, which paves the path of success of the present intra-Court appeal.

12. Consequently, the writ appeal is allowed and the impugned transfer, dated 31.12.2020, so far it relates to the appellant herein, is hereby quashed. However, it would be open to the respondents to post the respondent No.5 on consideration of her representation in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs."

(Emphasis supplied)

The singular point aforesaid is clearly covered by the judgment of Seema Pasi (supra). In absence of showing any special circumstances and administrative exigency to transfer the petitioner, a contractual employee's, transfer order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. Resultantly, transfer order dated 12.10.2021 is set aside.

The Writ Petition is allowed.

(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE R

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ROSHNI SINGH Signing time: 8/11/2023 3:53:32 PM