Parmod Saxena vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8715 MP

                                   -1-


       IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    AT I N D O R E
                              BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                     ON THE 14th OF JUNE, 2023


                    WRIT PETITION No. 4448 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
PARMOD SAXENA S/O SHRI KRISHNA SAXENA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE HOUSE NO. 120, WARD NO. 3, NEW COLONY,
NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, PACHORE, BIAORA, DISTRICT RAJGARH
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                      .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI NANDLAL TIWARI, ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH MINISTRY OF FISHERMEN
   WELFARE    AND  FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT  DEPARTMENT
1.
   PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
     CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER M.P.MATASYA MAHASANGH ,BHOPAL
2.
     MARYADIT BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
     THE SECRETARY M.P.MATASYA MAHASANGH MARYADIT BHOPAL
3.
     (MADHYA PRADESH)
     THE MANAGER M.P.MATASYA MAHASANGH MARYADIT UNIT
4.
     RAJGARH (MADHYA PRADESH)
     REGIONAL MANAGER M.P.MATASYA MAHASANGH MARYADIT,
5.
     GANDHI SAGAR UNIT (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                    .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI CHETAN JAIN, PANEL LAWYER)
        This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
                                      -2-


                                ORDER

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the orders dated 18.10.2022, 28.11.2022 & 05.01.2023.

02. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Accountant in the services of M.P. State Sahkari Agriculture & Rural Development Bank. Later on, he was absolved in the services of M.P. Matsya Mahasangh (Sahkari) Maryadit as an Accountant vide order dated 01.03.2019 and posted at Rajgarh Unit.

03. The petitioner has been transferred to Gandhi Sagar Unit vide order dated 04.10.2022. According to the petitioner, the place of transfer is 200 km away from Rajgarh. He is aged about 58 years, his wife is working as a teacher and posted in the District of Rajgarh, therefore, the transfer has caused various inconvenience to him. He approached this Court by way of W.P. No.27526 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 01.12.2022 with a direction to decide the representation. Now the respondents have rejected the representation, hence, the petitioner has approached this Court again.

04. Although the petitioner has not disclosed, but he has been working as Accountant at Rajgarh since last number of years. While working in Erstwhile Department, he was posted as Accountant at Rajgarh and even after absorption in the year 2019, he was posted at Rajgarh, therefore, only on the ground of personal inconvenience, the transfer order is not liable to be interfered with by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

05. In view of (2004) 12 SCC 390 (Medley Minerals India Limited

v/s State of Orissa & Others), (1995) 2 SCC 57 (State of Punjab & Others v/s Chaman Lal Goyal), (2015) 1 SCC 642 (Rajendra Kumar Agrawal v/s State of Uttar Pradesh & Others), (2020) 3 SCC 86 (Rajneesh Khajuria v/s Wockhardy Limited & Another) and judgment of this Court in 2011 (3) M.P.H.T. 479 (Bhagwat Singh Verma v/s The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others), the allegations of malafide cannot be entertained.

06. The transfer order can be interfered with if it violates any statutory provision (not policy guideline), proved to be malafide, passed by incompetent authority or changes service conditions of an employee to his detriment. No such ingredients are available in the petition.

07. In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.06.16 10:23:44 +05'30'