Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Maithali Saran Trivedi vs State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 June, 2020

Author: Sanjay Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi

                                   1                                WP-7779-2020
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                   WP-7779-2020
          (MAITHALI SARAN TRIVEDI Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


Jabalpur, Dated : 16-06-2020
      This matter is taken-up through video conferencing as per the direction

of Hon'ble the Chief Justice due to outbreak of pandemic (COVID-19).
      Shri Jafar Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
      Shri Vivek Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the
respondents/State.

Heard on the question of admission.

B y the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18.03.2020 (Annexure-P/2) whereby he has been directed to be transferred from Block Veijan, District Dindori to Block Ghodadongri, District Betul.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contract employee and as per the settled principle of law, contract employee cannot be transferred from one place to another. He is relying upon an order passed by this Court in identical situation in W.P. No.7416/2020 (Smt. Sulochana Ahirwar Vs. State of M.P. & others), in which, the Court has granted interim protection to the petitioner therein.

S hri Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondents/State submits that the policy issued by the State Government dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-P/3) contained a specific provision for transfer under Clause-9 of the said policy and accordingly, the petitioner has rightly been transferred. He further submits that the order passed by the coordinate Bench in aforesaid writ petition on which the petitioner is relying upon, is not helpful for the petitioner because the Court has not considered the relevant policy dated 24.02.2020, but considered the earlier policy dated 01.12.2015 which provides the post of contract employee is a non-transferable post.

Considering the above, I am of the opinion that taking note of the provisions of policy dated 24.02.2020 (Annexure-P/3), the petitioner can be transferred from one place to another and as such, the order impugned also 2 WP-7779-2020 contained the respective provision of transfer. The coordinate Bench admittedly has not been apprised about the existing transfer policy and, therefore, the order has been passed in view of the provisions of policy dated 01.12.2015, the petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to get any benefit of the order passed by the coordinate Bench and principle of parity is also not applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

However, the petition is disposed of directing the authority to consider and decide the pending representation of the petitioner Annexure-P/4 within a period of 30 days from the date of submitting the certified copy of this order.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, but it is for the authority to consider the personal grievance of the petitioner and if thinks so, he may issue a fresh order after considering the representation of the petitioner.

Petition is accordingly, disposed of. If the petitioner has not been relieved so far, then considering the outbreak of pandemic (COVID-19), the petitioner may be allowed to continue at the present place of posting till his representation is decided or for a further period of 30 days, whichever is earlier.

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE ac/-