Madhya Pradesh High Court
Umesh Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 16 December, 2013
WRIT PETITION No.20376/2013 1
16.12.2013
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal, learned Counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Puneet Shroti, learned Panel Lawyer for the
respondents-State on advance copy.
The grievance of the petitioner is that vide order dated 08.11.2013 (Annexure P-11) while deciding the representation made by the petitioner, in terms of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court, posting of the petitioner is made as Project Officer, District Urban Development Agency (DUDA), Sagar. Since the petitioner is to retire within a period of three months, at the best he could have been accommodated on a place in his home district. He being the senior most, should not have been posted in the manner he has been. Pursuance to the posting order since the petitioner already stood relieved from Chhatarpur, he is facing inconvenience. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.
It is seen that the petitioner was earlier transferred by order dated 7th May, 2010 from the post of Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development, Rewa Division, Rewa to the post of Project Officer, DUDA, Chhatarpur. The said order was called in question in a Writ Petition No.6760/2010 (S), which was dismissed on 15.02.2011. The petitioner filed a writ appeal before this Court being W.A. No.307/2011, which came up for hearing before the Division Bench of this Court on 15.04.2011. All the submissions as have been made by the petitioner in respect of his posting as Project Officer in DUDA were WRIT PETITION No.20376/2013 2 taken note of and all such contentions raised by the petitioner were rejected. Only when claim of the petitioner was being rejected as a whole by the Division Bench, the fact was brought to the notice that the representation made by the petitioner was pending before the department and, therefore, the Division Bench disposed of the appeal of the petitioner with liberty to pursue his representation dated 31.05.2010. Now since the order is passed by the respondents on the representation of the petitioner and the fact is taken note of by the respondents-authorities that the petitioner has not carried out the order dated 7th May, 2010 by working on the post of Project Officer, DUDA at Chhatarpur and remained continuously absent, the representation was decided and instead of posting the petitioner as Deputy Director, Urban Administration and Development at Sagar or Bhopal, he was posted as Project Officer in DUDA, Sagar. This being so, it cannot be said that any illegality is committed by the respondents. If the petitioner is to retire shortly, he cannot make a demand that he should be accommodated only and only at his home district.
That being so, no error is found in the order passed by the respondents. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(K.K. Trivedi) Judge Skc