Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed under Section 2 (i) of M. P. Uccha nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 challenging the order dated 05. 03. 2009 passed by learned Single judge, in Writ Petition No. 12479/08 (s), (Dr. (Smt.) Laxmi Dubey vs. The State of M. P. and Others. ( 2. ) IT was submitted by the appellant that before the Single bench appellant challenged her transfer order dated 07. 10. 2008 (Annexure P-2), by which appellant was transferred from Gotegaon to Sagar. The aforesaid order was challenged on the ground that the transfer order suffers from malafide. It was effected because certain complaints were made by the Sarpanch and other subordinates against the appellant. That without holding any inquiry in respect of truthfulness of the complaints, appellant was transferred from Gotegaon to Sagar. Earlier to her posting from gotegaon to Sagar she suffered frequent transfers on five occasions. It was submitted that learned Single Judge without considering this aspect dismissed the petition. ( 3. ) FROM the perusal of the order passed by learned Single judge, we find that the learned Single Judge considered the allegations and counter allegations in the matter and found that serious complaints were made against the appellant. The Collector, narsinghpur considering all the complaints made against the appellant recommended her transfer from Gotegaon. The matter travelled upto the Chief Minister who examined the matter and accorded sanction to the transfer. Thereafter the Chief Secretary with the consent of the Secretary of the Department passed the order of transfer. The learned Single Judge also recorded the finding that earlier appellant was posted at Sagar, where also similar complaints were made in respect of misbehaviour with the public and subordinates and on the basis of the aforesaid complaints, the appellant was earlier transferred. ( 4. ) CONSIDERING the aforesaid factual matrix, learned Single judge relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Imohd. Masood Ahmad vs. State of U. P. and others, ( (2007) 8 SCC 150 )came to the conclusion that transfer cannot be interfered and the writ petition was dismissed. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, we find that the learned Single Judge has gone through the entire material, considered it thoroughly and thereafter found that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same. ( 5. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, we find that the learned Single Judge has gone through the entire material, considered it thoroughly and thereafter found that there was no merit in the writ petition and dismissed the same. ( 5. ) IN view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in this writ appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed. ( 6. ) AT this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is ready to go on transfer, but she is having some difficulty in her posting at Sagar. She was married at Sagar. Her in-laws are residing at Sagar and her relation with her in-laws is not cordial and she may face difficulty at Sagar so she be directed to be posted at some other place except Sagar. ( 7. ) SHRI Vivekanand Awasthy, Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that this ground was not raised by the appellant before the Single Bench in the writ petition and also no material was produced by the appellant in this regard. Even there is no averment in the memo of appeal, in this regard. In view of the aforesaid contention of the appellant is an after-thought, which cannot be considered in the writ appeal. ( 8. ) FROM the perusal of the record of writ petition, we find that there is no merit in this contention. No such ground was raised by the appellant. So at this juncture, without any material, we cannot direct the State in this regard. However, it is observed that in case appellant files a representation to the State for her transfer to some other place, in place of Sagar, supported by some material, the State Government shall consider and decide the aforesaid grievances of the appellant, expeditiously, as far as possible within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of such representation. ( 9. ) AT this stage it was submitted by Shri Mishra that in the writ petition there was an order of maintaining status quo and appellant continued at Gotegaon and has not joined at Sagar, but she has not been paid salaries since October, 2008, so State be directed to make arrangement of the salaries of the appellant. ( 10. ) AT this stage it was submitted by Shri Mishra that in the writ petition there was an order of maintaining status quo and appellant continued at Gotegaon and has not joined at Sagar, but she has not been paid salaries since October, 2008, so State be directed to make arrangement of the salaries of the appellant. ( 10. ) SHRI A. K. Pathak, counsel for respondent No. 7 submitted that before the order of the status-quo appellant was relieved, so she was not entitled for salary. In these circumstance, she has been rightly denied the salaries. As this question was not raised before the Single Judge, and at this juncture it has been agitated, so we are not inclined to decide the same. However, we observe that in case appellant makes a representation in this regard to the state Government, the State Government shall consider and decide the grievance of the appellant, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.