Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Monika Tomar vs The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh ... on 17 July, 2020
Author: Sujoy Paul
Bench: Sujoy Paul
1 WP-8071-2020
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
WP-8071-2020
(SMT. MONIKA TOMAR Vs THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT JABALPUR
AND OTHERS)
Jabalpur, Dated : 17-07-2020
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri G.S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel for respondent no.s 1 and 3.
Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned Govt. Adv. for respondent no. 2. With the consent, finally heard.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 14.2.2020, whereby the petitioner, Assistant Grade - III, Morena is transferred to Rajgarh, (Byawara).
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that this petition may be treated as a mercy petition.
Considering the personal difficulties of the petitioner, which are described in representation dated 2.6.2020, (Annexure P-8), the department may consider the change of posting to a nearby place.
Shri Shroti, learned counsel for the High Court urged that the petitioner herself preferred a representation dated 13.6.2020, (Annexure R-7), wherein she prayed for one month's time to join at the place of transfer. The petitioner has already been relieved on 13.6.2020.
Shri Rajeshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 stated that the State is a formal party.
Considering the aforesaid stand of the parties, we find no illegality in the impugned order of transfer dated 14.2.2020. It is noteworthy that the transfer order can be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision, (not policy guidelines) proved to be malafide, changes service conditions of an employee to her detriment or passed by an incompetent authority. Personal inconvenience etc. is not the ground of interference by this court.
Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR SHRIVAS Date: 17/07/2020 16:39:522 WP-8071-2020 A Division Bench of this court in R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2007, M.P. 1329 opined that the employee may prefer representation, if she is aggrieved by the order of transfer.
Considering the aforesaid, we are only inclined to direct that pending representation of the petitioner, (Annexure P-8) be decided by the respondents within fifteen days from today.
Shri Shroti shall apprise the respondent no. 1 about this order during the course of the day.
Till decision is taken on the representation of the petitioner, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner for not joining at Rajgarh, (Byawara).
Withe aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of. C c as per rules.
(SUJOY PAUL) (RAJENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA)
JUDGE JUDGE
bks
Digitally signed by BASANT KUMAR
SHRIVAS
Date: 17/07/2020 16:39:52