Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 754 (MP)

M. L. Gupta v. State of M. P.

2014-07-02

SUJOY PAUL

body2014
Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges the order dated 21.5.2013 (Annexure P-1) whereby the petitioner, a Sub Divisional Officer posted at Sub Division, Datia is send as an attached officer to Guna, Division Guna. Criticizing this order, Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that petitioner is subjected to frequent transfer. By drawing attention of this Court on order dated 12.7.2012 (Annexure P-7), it is submitted that petitioner was transferred from Tikamgarh to Datia. In obedience of this order, he joined at Datia on 28.7.2012. It is further submitted that petitioner was also transferred by order dated 7.8.2012 from Datia to Gwalior. Attention is also drawn on the order dated 21.7.2010 to submit that petitioner is subjected to frequent transfers. 2. Shri R.P. Singh submits that the petitioner was subsequently promoted by order dated 1.5.2013 (Annexure P-3). On promotion he was posted as Sub Divisional Officer Sub Division, Datia. In obedience of promotion order, he joined at Datia on 2.5.2013 (Annexure P-2(1). Within a short span of time, he was attached to Sub Division Guna. It is urged that in view of Clause 18 of the transfer policy, all attachments were closed w.e.f. 1.5.2012 and thereafter the attachment of the petitioner is impermissible. In addition it is submitted that petitioner is due for retirement in February, 2015 and as per Clause 9.13 of the transfer policy, his transfer at this stage is without any justifiable reason. 3. Prayer is opposed by Mrs. Nidhi Patankar, Government Advocate. It is submitted that petitioner's transfer is on administrative exigency and in public interest. In absence of any violation of statutory provision or proving the malafide, no interference is warranted. It is submitted that when transfer order was issued, petitioner had more than one year to retire and, therefore, Clause 9.13 of transfer policy is not applicable. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. This Court on 30.5.2013 stayed the transfer order. The respondents have filed their return and justified the action. However, there is no whisper in the entire return as to how petitioner is posted as 'attached officer' to Guna division. Clause 18 of the transfer policy (page 22) makes it clear that Government has taken a conscious decision to discontinue and close all kinds of attachment. The respondents have filed their return and justified the action. However, there is no whisper in the entire return as to how petitioner is posted as 'attached officer' to Guna division. Clause 18 of the transfer policy (page 22) makes it clear that Government has taken a conscious decision to discontinue and close all kinds of attachment. No justification is given in the return as to how contrary to this Clause, the petitioner was attached to Guna Division. 6. Considering the aforesaid and on account of the fact that now petitioner is at the verge of retirement and department must examine whether any useful purpose would be served to transfer the petitioner at this stage to Guna, the respondents are directed to apply their mind to this aspect. Considering the aforesaid and on account of the fact that respondents have not considered about the question of impermissibility of sending the person as attached officer on transfer, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with following directions:- i) Petitioner shall prefer a detailed representation along with copy of this order and submit it before respondent No. 2 within 30 days from today, failing which the interim protection shall not be available to the petitioner. ii) The respondent No. 2, in turn, shall examine the representation in accordance with law and deal with the objection in the light of observations made by this Court in the present order and decide the same expeditiously. iii) Till decision of the representation, the interim order passed by this Court shall continue. 7. Petition is disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.