Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Shivraj Singh Tanwar vs Union Of India Thr. Home Ministry on 4 May, 2019

                                          HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                1                                                            WP No.8667/19

                                                          WP No.8667/2019
                                                 (Shivraj Singh Tanwar Vs. Union of India)


                                Indore, Dated : 4.5.2019
                                          Shri Shyam Singh Tanwar, learned counsel for the
                                petitioner.

                                          Shri Milind Phadke, learned ASG for the respondents.

Heard on the question of admission and interim relief.

By this petition the petitioner who is a member of CRPF has challenged the transfer order dated 17.2.2018 and also the relieving order dated 7.3.2018, whereby he has been transferred from Neemuch to Dulhasti (Kashmir) in north sector.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is having school going children and he himself has medical problem and is required to look after his ailing parents, therefore, his transfer be set aside. He has further submitted that the petitioner has already filed the application for voluntary retirement, yet he has been transferred.

As against this, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative ground and as per the policy.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned orders are dated 17.2.2018 and 7.3.2018 and more than a year has passed thereafter. After passing of the impugned order of transfer the petitioner had preferred the representation on the grounds which he has raised before this Court and the petitioner's representation was duly considered and the Digitally signed by Trilok Singh Savner Date: 04/05/2019 17:12:10 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 2 WP No.8667/19 petitioner was granted extension vide order dated 26.3.2018 by deferring the implementation of the order of transfer for one year till completion of the academic session 2018-19. The petitioner had duly accepted the order dated 26.3.2018 and had continued on that basis till the end of the academic session, i.e. 31.3.2019 and now when the relieving order dated 16.3.2019 has been issued, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. Having accepted the earlier order of extension and deriving benefit therefrom, it is not open to the petitioner to turnaround and challenge the same.

That apart, it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has already completed more than 6 years and 11 months at Neemuch, whereas in terms of Clause 25 of the transfer policy dated 25.9.2017 the maximum tenure of posting at zonal level is 3 years extendable to one year. Hence the petitioner even otherwise is not entitled to continue at present place of posting. The petitioner's request for extension of tenure on educational ground has already been considered and accepted in terms of Clause 26 of the transfer policy. The petitioner being a member of disciplined force is required to comply with the order of transfer. So far as the application for voluntary retirement dated 5.4.2019 is concerned, the petitioner has sought retirement with effect from 31.7.2019 and there is nothing on record to show that the prayer has been accepted, therefore, he is required to comply with the impugned order of transfer.

The impugned order of transfer has neither shown to have been passed in violation of any statutory provision nor any malafides are shown.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH 3 WP No.8667/19 Hence no case for interference in the impugned order of transfer is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.

(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok/-