Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dev Priya Bhushan Morya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 April, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
SINGLE BENCH : JUSTICE MS.VANDANA KASREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 14454/2017
Dev Priya Bhushan Morya
Vs.
State of M.P. & Others
Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Subodh Kathar, learned Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
ORDER
(19.04.2018) The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dated 05.08.2017 passed by respondent No. 4.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Hostel Care Taker in the year 1990. On 06.07.2017 he was transferred from Polytechnic College Dhar to Engineering College Sagar on the post of Hostel Care Taker. In compliance of the said order, the petitioner joined at Sagar on 12.07.2017. Even after, one month of joining, the petitioner was not given the charge of Hostel Care Taker for which he was appointed. Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representation to the Director Technical Education. However, instead of giving the charge of the post of Hostel Care Taker to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 has issued an order dated 05.08.2017 thereby directing the petitioner to take the charge of furniture department and provided the charge of Hostel Care Taker to Grade-III employee who is already having the charge of 2-3 sections. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No. 4, however, no action has been taken in the matter. The petitioner, therefore, submitted a representation to the Commissioner Division Sagar but he also not paid any attention. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Hostel Care Taker, therefore, he is entitled to work only on the post of Hostel Care Taker. He further submits that presently there are two posts for the post of Hostel Care Taker and the petitioner is the only one person present in the College for the said post even there are two hostels in the College. He further submits that no reasons whatsoever were assigned to the petitioner that why he cannot give the charge of Hostel Care Taker. He further submits that when an employee available for a particular class of post then there is no occasion to the respondents for not giving the charge of the said post to him. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order impugned deserves to be set aside.
4. Respondents No. 1, 2 and 4 have filed their reply and stated that the petitioner was transferred vide order dated 06.07.2017 on his own request from District Dhar to Government Engineering College, Sagar. Earlier to his transfer he was working on the post of Hostel Care Taker. When the petitioner was transferred from District Sagar to District Dhar one K.P. Ahirwar was discharging the work of Hostel Care Taker (Boys Hostel). After the transfer of the petitioner, the students of Hostel (Boys) has given the representation singed by all members that Mr. K.P. Ahirwar would be continued to work on the post of Hostel Care Taker as his work is very excellent and he is very cooperative and he is taking care properly and, therefore, made a request for continuance of Mr. K.P. Ahirwar. Similarly, as the additional charge of care taker of Girls Hostel at Government Engineering College was also given to the petitioner vide order dated 25.08.2017 there also similar situation arises and, therefore, in such circumstances, the petitioner vide order dated 05.08.2017 has been directed to discharge the duty of Physical In-charge Furniture at the O/o Workshop Superintendent looking to the large interest of the students. The respondents have further stated that as per Fundamental Rule-11 which provides General Condition of Service it provides that unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided the whole time officer Government Servant at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority without claim for additional remuneration. In view of the Fundamental Rules, the respondents have stated that he can be directed to do the work in which manner required by the proper authority. In view of the aforesaid submissions the respondents have stated that there is no merits in the said writ petition and accordingly the petition deserves to the dismissed.
5. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder denying the allegations made in the petition. The petitioner submits that in the institution there are two vacant post and only one post is fill up by joining of the petitioner although one post is vacant till date. Apart from this, the order passed by respondent No. 4 on 05.08.2017 that when the petitioner went to take the charge, then person concern refused to give him charge on the ground that he has no charge of furniture. So far as, Fundamental Rule 11 is concerned, the petitioner has stated that it would not be applicable in the present case. The Rule 11 demonstrate general condition of service.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Hostel Care Taker in the year 1990. He was transferred vide order dated 06.07.2017 at Engineering College Sagar on his own request. After his transfer, the petitioner submitted his joining, however, he was not given the charge of Hostel Care Taker. He, therefore, submitted number of representations to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondents have passed an order dated 05.08.2017 thereby giving the charge of department furniture to the petitioner. Being aggrieved by that order, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
8. The Fundamental Rule 11 provides for the General Conditions of Service which reads as under:-
"F.R.-11. General Conditions of Service- Unless in any case it be otherwise distinctly provided, the whole time of a Government Servant is at the disposal of the Government which pays him and he may be employed in any manner required by proper authority, without claim for additional remuneration, whether the services required of him are such as would ordinarily be remunerated from general revenues, from a local fund (or from the funds of a body corporate or not, which is wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government)".
As per the said Rule, it is for the employer to take the work from his employee in any manner which the authority requires. In the administrative function of the authorities, this Court would not interfere. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in this writ petition.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
(Ms.Vandana Kasrekar) Judge ashish Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR LILHARE Date: 2018.04.19 05:20:57 -07'00'