Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Saini vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 February, 2023
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Anand Pathak
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
ON THE 3 rd OF FEBRUARY, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 2200 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
PRAVEEN SAINI S/O SHRI P.C. SAINI, AGED ABOUT 59
Y E A R S , OCCUPATION: ASSISTANT STATISTICAL
OFFICER CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PHANDA
DISTRICT BHOPAL A/101 SHASHTRI NAGAR BHADBADA
ROAD BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI VIPIN YADAV- ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD
DEVELOPMENT VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI HARSHMEET HORA- PANEL LAWYER )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Heard on admission.
The present petition is preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 03.01.2023 passed by the respondents whereby the petitioner who was working as Assistant Statistical Officer at Bhopal has been transferred to Budhar, District- Shahdol.
It is a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been around two years left to superannuate and his wife is also working as Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 2/6/2023 10:26:24 AM 2 Assistant Grade-III in the law Department of Vindhyachal Bhawan, Bhopal. It is further submitted that in his place nobody has been posted by the respondents and not only this in the vicinity at Barkhedi, District-Bhopal. One post of Assistant Statistical Officer is lying vacant and therefore, his anxiety is that if his case is considered for retention either at present place of posting or at Bankhedi then he can take care of his family, even ready to move to any place within a radius of 100 kms. so that he can look after his family.
Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer. However, he fairly submits that if any representation is pending consideration, then same shall be taken care of as per law by the respondents considering the predicament of the petitioner.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.
Transfer is an incident of service. No one much less petitioner has any vested right to be posted at a particular place of posting. It is well settled in law that employer is the best judge to organize its work force and it is also well settled in law that a transfer order cannot be subjected to judicial review unless and until same is found to be influenced by mala fide or arbitrary exercise of powers which petitioner fails to do so. Concept of equality as enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, has no application to the cases of transfers.
It is true that transfer of an employee is a prerogative of employer but it should be reasonable and must have nexus with the purposes for which employee is being transferred. [See :- B. Varadha Rao vs State of Karnataka and ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1955]. All these aspects have been considered by this Court in W.P. No.7901/2022 in bunch of petitions Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 2/6/2023 10:26:24 AM 3 Ramniwas Sharma vs. State of M.P. & others vide order dated 06.04.2022.
In the present set of facts however, it appears that petitioner has only two years left to retire and his wife is also working in Government Job at Bhopal and very fairly petitioner expressed his desire to render his services at any place in the vicinity, meaning thereby that he is clinging upon a particular place at Bhopal but intends to serve the Department in meaningful manner in his vicinity or nearby place, but at the same time he intends to look after his family as well.
Considering all these factors into account, instead of keeping this petition pending, this Court intends to direct the petitioner to prefer a fresh representation to the Competent Authority within a period of 15 days along with the copy of this order and if such representation is received, then same shall be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority after weighing due factors involved in the case and thereafter pass a reasoned order within six weeks thereafter under due intimation to the petitioner.
It is expected that as a modal employer, respondent-authority shall rise to the occasion and consider the factors as expressed in the petition.
Till the representation is decided, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 03.01.2023 shall be kept in abeyance so far as relates to the petitioner is concerned and the petitioner is allowed to continue at present place of posting.
With the aforesaid, the petition is finally disposed of.
(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE rk.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: RAVIKANT KEWAT Signing time: 2/6/2023 10:26:24 AM