Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Pandey vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 22 December, 2016
WP-20716-2016
(DR. KAMLESH KUMAR PANDEY Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
22-12-2016
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the
respondents/State.
Shri Sankalp Kochar, Advocate for the intervener. Heard.
Shri Sankalp Kochar has filed I.A. No.16996/2016 for intervention. This application is filed by Madhya Pradesh Anusuchit Jati-Janjati Adhikari Avam Karmchari Sangh.
Shri Sankalp Kochar submits that the intervener is opposing the relief(s) claimed by the petitioner. The intervener preferred complaints against the petitioner. Hence, intervener may be permitted to participate in the present proceedings. Reliance is placed on certain other documents filed with the intervention application.
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner opposed the contentions.
I have heard the parties on this intervention application. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of repatriation dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-5). Thus, the battle is between the petitioner and the respondents. The impugned order nowhere reflects that it is passed on the complaint of the proposed intervener. Thus, I am unable to hold that intervener has any locus standi to participate in the present proceedings. Intervention application is accordingly rejected.
Heard on admission.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.12.2016 (Annexure P-5) whereby he is repatriated with immediate effect. It is argued that by order dated 02.03.2015 (Annexure P-1) petitioner was sent on deputation till further orders. The circular of G.A.D. dated 29.02.2008 shows that the normal period of deputation is two years. If during the period of deputation, repatriation is necessary, it can be done with the consent of parent and borrowing department. It is further argued that as per recommendation of the Collector, Sidhi dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner's services are required in public interest at the present place. In support of contentions reliance is placed on (2005) 8 SCC 394 (Union of India through Govt. of Pondicherry and another vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others) and (2015) 4 SCC 164 (Union of India vs. S.N. Maiti).
The prayer is opposed by Shri Santosh Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondents/State.
It is seen that the respondent No.3/Collector by communication dated 15.12.2016 requested the respondent No.2 to take steps to ensure proper working of the Department. He expressed that repatriation of the petitioner will create serious problems in implementing the government schemes.
The petitioner has also relied on the aforesaid two judgments of the Supreme Court.
In this view of the matter, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with the following directions:-
(1) Petitioner shall file a detailed representation along with copy of this order and with the judgments on which reliance is placed and submit it before the respondent No.2 within 10 working days from today, failing which interim protection will not be available to the petitioner.
(2) In turn, the respondent No.2 shall consider and decide representation expeditiously by a reasoned order. Till such time the representation is not decided, the impugned order dated
02.12.2016 (Annexure P-5), shall remain stayed.
Petition is disposed of without expressing any view on the merits of the case.
C.C. as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE psm