[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anuj Vijayawargiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 11 December, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32398
1 WP-47881-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ASHISH SHROTI
ON THE 11 th OF DECEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 47881 of 2025
ANUJ VIJAYAWARGIYA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri D.S. Rajawat - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rohit Shrivastava - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.11.2025 whereby he has been
transferred from Annapurna CLF Aawada, Jivan Jyoti CLF, Manpur to Chtanya
CLF Raghunathpur.
2. Challenging aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner's appointment is on contractual nature and for a particular place.
Referring to Clause 9.1 of Circular, dated 24.02.2020, he submitted that the
person working on contract basis can be transferred only in special circumstances
otherwise he cannot be transferred. In support of his submission, he relies upon
the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Seema Pasi Vs. The State of
M.P. & Ors. (W.A No. 281/2021). He thus prayed for interference by this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice tried to justify the
impugned transfer and submitted that Clause 9.1 of the aforesaid Circular itself
permits transfer of the employees.
4. Considered the arguments on admission.
5. Clause 9.1 of the Circular provides that the appointment of a contractual
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32398
2 WP-47881-2025
employee is for a particular place and for a particular work and there is no
provision for transfer. However, upon administrative exigencies, the transfer can
be made in special circumstances. A perusal of impugned order shows that the
transfer has been made only on the ground that the petitioner has remained at a
particular place for more than two years.
6. Considering the aforesaid Clause 9.1, the Division Bench in Seema Pasi
(supra) held in para-8 & 9 as under;
"8. On a bare perusal of the of the impugned order oftransfer, it is
graphically clear that the transfer has been issued in reference to
Clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24-02-2020 passed by the
Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Govt. of M.P. The
said Circular was issued in respect of delegation of administrative
and financial powers under the M.P. Rajya Gramin Aajevika
Mission by superseding all previous circulars. As per Clause 9.1
of the said Circular, it is provided that the services of contractual
employees are meant for a specific place and for specific works
and, therefore, the services are not transferrable. However,
considering the administrative arrangements in special
circumstances, services of such employees can be transferred. In
the impugned transfer order it is stated that the appellant and other
employees, whose names are mentioned in the said list, have been
transferred, keeping in view the administrative exigencies. The
transfer of the appellant cannot be said to be under rationalization,
because the respondents have failed to establish that the appellant
is a surplus employee at Jabalpur. On the contrary, in place of the
appellant on her transfer, the respondent No.5 has been posted.
There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant has been
transferred under rationalization.
9. Transfer of contractual employees has been permitted by virtue
of Clause 9.1 of the Circular, dated 24-02-2020 only in
special circumstances. The respondents have failed to show, that
there are special circumstances, under which the appellant has
been transferred. It is not the case of the respondents No.2 and 4
that there is any administrative exigency in respect of
continuation of the appellant at Jabalpur. The respondent No.5
and her husband have been transferred at Jabalpur on their own
request, which is evincible from the request letter submitted by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:32398
3 WP-47881-2025
the respondent No.5 and her husband, which has been placed on
record as Annexure-RJ/1. It is discernible, that at Jabalpur the
appellant was posted and only one post was available. Under the
policy - rationalization the appellant could not be transferred,
because she was not a surplus employee at Jabalpur. The
rationalization can take place, only to shift/transfer the employees
who are surplus at one place, and at the other place the posts are
vacant."
7 . In view of the aforesaid, the respondent-authority is required to re-
examine the matter as to whether continuing for more than two years on a
particular post would be a sufficient and special ground as contemplated in Clause
9.1 of the Circular. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Seema Pasi
(supra) is also required to be considered by the Authorities.
8 . In view of the aforesaid, instead of keeping this petition pending, the
matter is relegated to Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sheopur to re-
examine the matter keeping in view the Division Bench judgment rendered in the
case of Seema Pasi (supra).
9. Till the matter is re-examined and fresh order is passed, transfer of the
petitioner vide order, dated 19.11.2025, shall be kept in abeyance.
10. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.
(ASHISH SHROTI)
JUDGE
vpn/-
