Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashok Kumar Gowadiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 July, 2020
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.9339/2020
Ashok Kumar Gowadiya vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
Gwalior, Dated : 10/07/2020
Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi, Counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Shukla, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Heard through Video Conferencing.
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed against the order dated 27.6.2020 by which the petitioner
has been transferred from Sheopur to Bhind.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is working on the post of Tahsildar and as per the
provisions of clause 11.8 of the transfer policy, the employees who
are going to retire within a period of one year should not be generally
transferred. It is further submitted that in the year 2018, the
petitioner was transferred to Vijaypur from Bhind and thus the
present transfer order amounts to frequent in nature.
Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioner.
According to the petitioner, his date of birth is 11.3.1959 and,
therefore, it appears that the petitioner is going to retire after nine
months.
Clause 11.8 of the transfer policy reads as under:
11-8 ftu vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok&fuo`fRr
esa ,d o"kZ ;k mlls de le; 'ks"k gks] lkekU;r% mudk
LFkkukarj.k ugh fd;k tk,A ;fn iz'kklfud dkj.kksa ls
LFkkukarj.k djuk vko';d gks rks muds }kjk fn;s x;s
fodYi ds vuqlkj LFkkukarj.k fd;s tkus ij fopkj fd;k
tk,A
The use of word "generally" clearly indicates that there is no
absolute bar on the transfer of the Government employee in case if he
is going to retire within a period of one year.
2 THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
W.P. No.9339/2020
Ashok Kumar Gowadiya vs. State of M.P. & Anr.
It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner has filed a representation Annexure P/7 which is still
pending and has not been decided so far.
The petitioner has not filed a copy of the acknowledgment
showing the dispatch/receipt of the representation by the
respondents. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if the petitioner
files a fresh representation pointing out that he is going to retire on 31.3.2021, then the respondents shall decide the same in accordance with law.
Needless to mention that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 has held that the representation can be decided only after the employee joins at his transferred place. Accordingly, it is directed that in case if the petitioner joins at the transferred place, then the representation shall be decided as early as possible.
With aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. Ahluwalia)
(alok) Judge
ALOK KUMAR
2020.07.10
17:50:33 +05'30'