Arun Kumar Chakotiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 13928 MP

                                  1
 IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                       AT GWALIOR
                            BEFORE
              HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
                     ON THE 24 th OF AUGUST, 2023
                   WRIT PETITION No. 21441 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
ARUN KUMAR CHAKOTIYA S/O SHRI HARINARAYAN
CHAKOTIYA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
SUB ENGINEER JANPAD PANCHAYAT NARWAR
DISTRICT SHIVPURI NAGAR PARISHAD MAGRAUNI
TEHSIL NARWAR DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH)

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

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

2.    COM M ISSION ER M.P. STATE EMPLOYMENT
      GUARANTEE COUNCIL NARMADA BHAWAN II
      FLOOR C WING 59 BHOPAL BHOPAL (MADHYA
      PRADESH)

3.    THE COLLECTOR DIST. PROGRAM CONVENER
      SHIVPURI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                            .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SHIRAZ QURAISHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE )

      Th is petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the
following:
                                   ORDER

1. The present petition is preferred by the petitioner taking exception to the order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.2- Commissioner,, M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council, whereby petitioner

who is working as Sub Engineer in Janpad Panchayat Narwar, District Shivpuri is directed to join at Janpad Panchayat Bhind in same capacity.

2. According to learned counsel for petitioner said modus operandi is not permissible because of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dr. Ajit Singh vs. State of M.P. and Ors. W.P.No.8931/2020, wherein relying upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ashok Tiwari vs. M.P. Text Book Corporation and another, (2010) MPLJ 662 (FB), it is being held that in absence of an enabling provision/service condition, a causal employee cannot be transferred. Here petitioner is not a regular employee of State Government, therefore, he cannot be transferred. He preferred a representation

also in this regard to the authorities but to no avail.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/State opposed the contentions of the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of this petition.

4. Considering the rival submissions and going through the order dated 6.8.2020 passed in W.P. No.8931/2020 Dr. Ajit Singh (supra) , this Court intends to allow the petition to the extent where petitioner is directed to prefer a representation within 15 days elaborating all his grievances and taking the grounds as raised in petition regarding authority of respondents to transfer petitioner through indirect means, and if such representation is preferred along with certified copy of order, then respondent shall consider the contention and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.

5. Till representation is decided by passing a reasoned order, petitioner shall not be compelled to join at transferred place of posting at Bhind and till his contractual tenure is invoked, he shall be continued to work at his present place of posting.

6. It is made clear that this interim order is only to the extent of

contractual period and not beyond that.

7. It is expected that representation be decided positively within four weeks before completion of tenure of petitioner taking into consideration the law laid down by Full Bench in the case of Ashok Tiwari (supra) and by the coordinate Bench in the case of Dr. Ajit (supra).

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE Van

VANDANA VERMA 2023.08.24 18:36:01 -07'00'