Madhya Pradesh High Court
Daya Ram Ahirwar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 September, 2021
Author: Vishal Mishra
Bench: Vishal Mishra
1
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Writ Petition No.17008 of 2021
(Dayaram Ahirwar Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others)
Jabalpur, Dated :09.09.2021
Shri H.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev K. Singh, learned panel lawyer for the
respondents/State.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-
"i) To issue appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 26.08.2021 Annexure P/1 as far as it concerns the petitioner.
ii) To call the relevant records, for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court
iii) Any other reliefs deemed fit on facts and circumstances of the instant case."
It is pointed out that vide impugned order dated 26.08.2021 (Annexure P-1) the petition has been transferred from Nowgong to Jawra. His name finds place at Sl.No.10 in the impugned order. It is submitted that the petitioner is a Commissioned National Cadet Corps Officer ANO and presently he is holding the rank of Captain. It is submitted that vide impugned order, he has been transferred to a place where there is no NCC Unit functioning. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Clause 28 of the transfer policy which reads as under :-
"28 कममशन पपप एन सस सस अमधकपररयय कक सतनपनतरण करतक समय इस बपत कप धयपन रखप जपयक कक मजन सथपनन पर अमधकपररयय कप सथपनपनतरण मकयप जपतप हह उन सथपनन पर एन सस सस कक सनबनमधत इकपई सनचपमलत हन "2
It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is violative of the transfer policy as there is no NCC unit available and the petitioner's entire work will go in vain. It is pointed out that consultation from the Director General, Bhopal should be made prior to the transferring of the petitioner as is reflected in the circular of the State Government but that has not been done while transferring the petitioner. A detailed representation has been preferred by the petitioner but the same has not been dealt with, therefore the petition is filed.
An innocuous prayer has been made to direct the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation. It is stated that the petitioner has not been relieved till date, therefore, till the decision of the representation he may be permitted to work at his present place of posting i.e. Nowgong.
Learned counsel for the State has no objection if the representation is decided at an early date. As far as interim relief is concerned, though opposed the interim relief on the ground that the transfer being the condition of service and the employee has to obey with the transfer order as and when required, but he could not dispute the fact that no procedure as provided in Clause 28 of the transfer policy has been followed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the transfer order is violative of Clause 28 of the Policy, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation to the respondent No.1 who in turn will dwell upon the representation and pass a self contained speaking 3 order within a period of 30 days and communicate the outcome to the petitioner. As stated that the petitioner has not been relieved till date, therefore, till the decision of the representation, the petitioner may be permitted to continue at Nowgong.
With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.
(Vishal Mishra) Judge AM.
Digitally signed by ANINDYA SUNDAR MUKHOPADHYAY Date: 2021.09.13 17:46:03 +05'30'