Rishabh Kumar Sikka vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 14373 MP

                                                                1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                   BEFORE
                                   HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                           ON THE 2 nd OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 21953 of 2023

                    BETWEEN:-
                    RISHABH KUMAR SIKKA S/O SHRI PURAN LAL SIKKA, AGED
                    ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: SUB ENGINEER (CONTRACT)
                    POSTED JANPAD PANCHAYAT SAHPURA DISTRICT DINORI
                    (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                            .....PETITIONER
                    (BY SHRI V.D.S. CHOUHAN - ADVOCATE )

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

                    2.     COMMISSIONER M.P. ROJGAR GUARANTEE COUNCIL
                           BHOPAL NARMADA BHAWAN, SECOND FLOOR "C" WINGS
                           BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                    3.     COLLECTOR DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                    4.     JILA PANCHAYAT DINDORI THROUGH ITS CHIEF
                           EXECUTIVE OFFICER CEO JILA PANCHAYAT DINDORI
                           DISTRICT DINDORI (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....RESPONDENTS
                    (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
                           This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:
                                                            ORDER

This is a petition assailing the order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) issued by M.P. State Employment Guarantee Council by which, the petitioner along with other Sub-Engineers who were engaged as Sub-Engineers on contractual basis have been directed to execute a fresh agreement at new Districts which are mentioned in column Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 05-09-2023 15:20:09

no.5 of the order.

2. Learned counsel contends that the order impugned is in the form of transfer as the petitioner is being sought to be transferred from Dindori to Jabalpur. It is contended by the counsel that the petitioner being a contractual employee cannot be subjected to transfer and the posting out of District is only permissible within the four corners of the circular dated 14.09.2020 (Annexure-P/3). Learned counsel while placing reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this Court in Anurag Nigam vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. (WA No.1206/2023) submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed. The Division Bench while taking a note of the eventuality of transfer of a contractual employee has interfered with the order of transfer while holding that there has

to be special circumstances warranting transfer of a contractual employee.

3. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on another order passed by this Court in the case of Ashok Shukla vs. The State of M.P. and Ors. (W.P. No.18957/2023).

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that this Court has already dealt with the same impugned order on a petition filed by one of the employees whose name is mentioned in the impugned order and the petition filed by the said employee vide W.P. No.21782/2023 has already been dismissed. Thus, counsel submits that no interference is warranted.

5. Having heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, a perusal of the order impugned dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure-P/1) reflects that the same is not a transfer order, on the contrary, the petitioner, whose tenure of contract is over, has been directed to execute new agreement at District Jabalpur. The same order impugned vide W.P. No.21782/2023 (Sheikh Mohsin vs. The State of M.P. and Ors.) has been dealt with by this Court.

6. This Court in the case of Sheikh Mohsin (supra) held in paragraphs 6, 7, Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 05-09-2023 15:20:09

8, 9, 10 and 11 as under:-

6. The enclosures filed with the petition reflect that the petitioner w a s engaged as Sub-Engineer on contractual basis. The contract agreement of the petitioner was renewed from time to time and vide order dated 08.08.2022 (Annexure P/4), the agreement of the petitioner was renewed till 31.03.2023. After 31.03.2023, there is no renewal in favour of the petitioner though there are orders which have been brought on record by the petitioner vide Annexure P/5 dated 07.07.2023, 09.08.2023, 11.08.2023 and 19.08.2023 to show the petitioner was being assigned works, but, there is no renewal of agreement of the petitioner on record.

7. The petitioner's submission is that the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 contained in Annexure P/1 is an order of transfer. The said contention of the petitioner, in the considered view of this Court, has no substance in view of opening paragraph of the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/1). The opening paragraph of the impugned order reflects that the petitioner along with other contractual Sub-Engineers has been directed to execute a new agreement in the District specified

in 5 th column of table mentioned in the impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/1).

8 . Accordingly, as the petitioner's earlier agreement has already been completed on 31.03.2023, he has been directed to execute a new agreement at District Rewa and therefore, the Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 05-09-2023 15:20:09

impugned order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/1) is not an order of transfer of the petitioner's services.

9. The judgments relied upon by the present petitioner in W.P.No.281/2021 (Seema Pasi vs. The State of M.P. and Others), has no applicability in the present case as this is not a case of transfer, on the contrary, the petitioner whose contract has already elapsed on 31.03.2023, has been directed to execute a new agreement at District Rewa.

10. Accordingly, the reliance on the other decisions is also misplaced inasmuch as, the case in hand is not a case of transfer of the present petitioner.

11. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court does not find any merit in the present petition, accordingly, the same stands dismissed at admission stage itself.

7. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered view that the reliance placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Anurag Nigam (supra) as well as in the case of Ashok Shukla (supra) is misconceived. As the aforesaid cases were pertaining to transfer of the employees whereas the present case is not a case of transfer on the contrary, upon completion of contractual tenure, the petitioner has been called upon to execute a fresh agreement.

8. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: MANOJ NAIR Signing time: 05-09-2023 15:20:09