Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Gabbarsingh Parmar vs Women And Child Development Department on 19 August, 2019

Author: Prakash Shrivastava

Bench: Prakash Shrivastava

                                                                  1

            HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     Writ Petition No.5314/2019
              (Gabbarsingh Parmar Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore, Dated: 19/08/2019
     Shri Manuraj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Shri     Pourush     Ranka,    learned    counsel    for   the
respondent/State.

Heard.

The petitioner who is working as In-charge, Project Officer in the Child Development Office has challenged the order of transfer dated 07/03/2019 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Maheshwar, District Khargone to Bhanpura, District Mandsaur.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not completed 3 years tenure in the present place of posting since the petitioner was newly appointed on this post only on 27/01/2017. He has further submitted that the petitioner's wife is working as Assistant Teacher at Kharonge and she is suffering from certain pregnancy problem and taking treatment at Indore.

As against this, learned counsel for the State has opposed the writ petition submitting that the petitioner's wife is posted at Kharogne since long and the distance from Kanrgone and Mandsaur from Indore is almost the same and no ground for interference is made out.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned order of transfer is a general order of transfer whereby several such employees have been transferred on the administrative ground. The record further reflects that the petitioner is a new appointee and at the commencement of his career itself he has taken 2 recourse to the litigation. That apart, the petitioner has completed more than 2 years in the present place of posting and there is no hard and fast rule that an employee cannot be transferred before completion of 3 years of period.

So far as the issue relating to working of the petitioner's wife at Khargone is concerned, learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner's wife is posted at Khargone since 2012 and so far as the medical problem of the wife is concerned, it has been pointed out that the treatment which the petitioner's wife is taking relates to fertility issue which is a long term treatment and that the distance from Khargone and Mandsaur to Indore is almost the same.

It is the settled position in law that the transfer is an incident of service and an employee is required to go on transfer as and when the administrative exigency so exists. The present transfer order has not been shown to have been passed in violation of any statutory provision nor any malafidies are established.

Hence, I am of the opinion that the challenge to the impugned transfer order has no merit.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent to decide the pending representation dated 08/03/2019.

The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2015(4) MPLJ 480 has held that if against the order of transfer any representation is preferred, then the petitioner is first required to comply with the order of transfer and thereafter prosecute the remedy of representation.

Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that there is no objection in deciding the representation within a time bound period.

Hence, the present writ petition is disposed off by directing the competent authority to decide the petitioner's pending representation within 6 weeks from the date of certified copy of this order.

C.c. as per rules.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge krjoshi Digitally signed by KHEMRAJ JOSHI Date: 2019.08.20 10:13:47 +05'30'