Madhya Pradesh High Court
Arvind Singh Yadav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 2 April, 2024
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 2 nd OF APRIL, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 7732 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
ARVIND SINGH YADAV S/O SHRI VEERENDRA
SINGH YADAV, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: SERVICE R/O- SIHOR
TEHSILNAISARI DISTRICT ASHOKNAGAR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI K.K. SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. COMMISSIONER, GWALIOR DIVISION
GWALIOR (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA
PANCHAYAT ASHOKNAGAR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI R.S. KUSHWAHA - DEPUTY ADVOCATE GENERAL)
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed
the following:
ORDER
1. Head on admission.
2 . The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has
been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 14.03.2024
(Annexure P/1) passed by Chief Executive Officer, Zila Panchayat
Ashoknagar (respondent No.3 herein), whereby petitioner who was
working as Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat Sihore, Janpad
Panchayat Isagarh has been directed to work temporarily at Gram
Panchayat Ruhana, Janpad Panchayat Isagarh, District Ashoknagar.
3 . Petitioner has raised two grounds. One is that earlier policy
dated 02.06.2012 framed by the Madhya Pradesh State Employment
Guaranteed Council does not contemplate transfer of Gram Rozgar
Sahayak. Another ground is that petitioner would have to undergo
execution of fresh contract with the Gram Panchayat where he has been
deputed for the time being. This would constitute alteration of service
condition. He relied upon judgment dated 05.01.2023 passed by Principal
Seat at Jabalpur of this Court in the case of Bihari Pal Vs. State of M.P.
and others (Writ Petition No.21986/2021).
4. According to the petitioner, approach of authority is arbitrary and
illegal. It is contrary to the policy made recently on 05.10.2023 (Annexure
P/5).
5 . Learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State
opposed the prayer and submitted that petitioner has been temporarily
posted at Gram Panchayat Ruhana. It is not the transfer per se. Therefore,
petitioner cannot be aggrieved with his temporary posting. Even otherwise,
as per policy dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure P/5), Clause 3 (d) stipulates
that place of Gram Rozgar Sahayak can be changed. In that condition, he
has to execute fresh agreement with the Gram Panchayat where he has
been transferred. Therefore, there is no illegality or arbitrariness involved.
6 . Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
documents appended thereto.
7 . This is a case where petitioner is working as Gram Rozgar
Sahayak at Gram Panchayat Sihore, Janpad Panchayat Isagarh,
Ashoknagar since 12.11.2012. He referred the agreement executed
between the parties which is filed as Annexure P/4.
8 . According to petitioner, when petitioner is working at Gram
Panchayat Sihore for last many years then he cannot be transferred but on
close scrutiny, it appears that he is temporarily posted at another Gram
Panchayat Ruhana. It is not the case of transfer per se. Recent policy of
Panchayat Evam Rural Development Department, Government of Madhya
Pradesh promulgated on 05.10.2023 (Annexure P/5) contemplates in
Clause 3 (d) that after three years of continuous service, Gram Rozgar
Sahayak can be transferred in any Gram Panchayat in same district. In that
condition, said person has to undergo fresh agreement with the new Gram
Panchayat to serve there. Earlier Employment Guaranteed Parishad issued
the circular. Now the State Government has issued the circular as referred
above. By the said circular dated 05.10.2023, petitioner can be transferred.
9. Therefore, it is not the case where petitioner once appointed as
Gram Rozgar Sahayak in Gram Panchayat then he cannot be transferred
anywhere. Certainly he can be transferred as per circular dated 05.10.2023
and understandably so because if Gram Rozgar Sahayak is mischievous
and causing pilferage in the State Exchequer then earlier only option
available to the authorities concerned was of removal from services.
However; another course available by this policy is of change of place.
10. So far as judgment relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner
is concerned, the said judgment Bihari Pal (supra) moves in different
factual realm because it was the case where Gram Rozgar Sahayak
challenged the repatriation of his services from another Gram Panchayat to
his parent Gram Panchayat. In that condition, it was observed that those
Gram Rozgar Sahayaks have no statutory backing for retention at
transferred place of posting. Here, petition is taking exception to his
temporary posting at different Gram Panchayat.
11. In the considered opinion of this Court and in the given facts
and circumstances of the case, no case for interference is made out.
Petitioner has to comply the impugned order dated 14.03.2024.
12. Accordingly, petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
(ANAND PATHAK)
JUDGE
Rashid
