Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 13752 MP
Judgement Date : 22 August, 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 22 nd OF AUGUST, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 21061 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
VINAYAK SINGH TOMAR S/O SHRI ANIL KUMAR
TOMAR, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: GOVT.
SERVICE POSTED AS PATWRI WARD NO 2 NAWADA
BAGH TEHSIL BHIND (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YASH SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COLLECTOR BHIND, DISTRICT BHIND , (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER DISTRICT BHIND ,
(MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI ARVIND SINGH BHADORIYA, MINISTER
DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIVE GOVERNMENT OF
MADHYA PRADESH (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI S.S. KUSHWAH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the transfer order dated 07.07.2023, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Tehsil Bhind to Tehsil Lahar of District Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 23-Aug-23 5:17:56 PM
Bhind.
At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the transfer order has already been executed, therefore, he may be permitted to file fresh repres entation before the respondents/competent authority and the respondents/competent authority be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner and take appropriate decision on the said representation in the light of Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556.
On the other hand, the innocuous prayer made by counsel for the petitioner is not opposed by learned Government Advocate.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Accordingly, 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 i n ILR (2015) MP 2556, according to which the direction to decide the representation cannot be issued unless and until the employee joins at his transferred place, therefore, it is directed that in case if the petitioner after submitting his joining at the transferred place submits a supplementary representation along with certified copy of this order, then the said representation shall be considered by the respondents within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without getting influenced or prejudiced by this order and the representation shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.
Needless to mention that the direction to decide the representation should not be construed as a direction to allow the representation and the representation shall be decided strictly in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified With aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed off. Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 23-Aug-23 5:17:56 PM
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu
Signature Not Verified Signed by: NEETU SHASHANK Signing time: 23-Aug-23 5:17:56 PM
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!