Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Rajni Barolia vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 February, 2020

Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla

Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla

                                                         1                                WP-3658-2020
                              The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                         WP-3658-2020
                                   (RAJNI BAROLIA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)

                     1
                     Jabalpur, Dated : 29-02-2020
                            Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
                            Shri    Ishan     Mehta,   learned    Government      Advocate     for   the
                     respondents/State.

Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the legality and validity of the transfer order dated 04.02.2020 passed by the respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Project Sagar City-1, District Sagar to Project Panna Rural, District Panna.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is holding the post of Assistant Grade-III. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred during the ban period. It is further submitted that the transfer order is not passed in accordance with the transfer policy of the State Government and the petitioner has already submitted a representation (Annexure-P/7) stating her personal difficulties as well, but no heed is paid to the representation submitted by her.

Considering the aforesaid submissions, and the fact that the transfer order is passed in the month of February and representation of the petitioner is not yet decided, it is appropriate at this stage to dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondent No.1 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.

It is further argued that no one has been posted in place of the petitioner and the petitioner is still working at present place of posting.

In view of the aforesaid, it is directed that till the representation of the petitioner is decided by the respondent No.1, the operation of impugned order dated 04.02.2020 so far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed.

Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 03/03/2020 12:52:42

2 WP-3658-2020 C.C. today.

(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) JUDGE vinay Digitally signed by VINAY KUMAR BURMAN Date: 03/03/2020 12:52:42