Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 604 (MP)

Sudarshan Gupta v. State of M. P.

2015-06-04

U.C.MAHESHWARI

body2015
ORDER 1. In compliance of order dated 1.6.2015 complete list of transferred persons has been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 2. The same is taken on record. 3. Heard. 4. On behalf of the petitioner, this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ against the authority of the respondents for the following reliefs :- “7. Relief prayed for :- It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and be further pleased to issued the writ in the nature of mandamus or any other suitable writ, order or directions to grant the following reliefs to the petitioner :- (i) That the impugned transfer order dated 19.5.2015 (Annexure P-1) passed by the respondent No.2 may kindly be quashed and the representation submitted by the petitioner may kindly be considered sympathetically and till then the petitioner may be allowed to work at Gwalior. (ii) That any other relief to which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit may also be directed to be extended in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice. (iii) That the costs of this petition be also awarded to the petitioner.” 5. Petitioner’s counsel after taking me through the papers placed along with the petition argued that in view of physical condition of the petitioner according to which, he is not in a position to walk independently and his regular treatment is being carried out and if his transfer order Annexure P-1 is not cancelled then he has to suffer a lot because at the transferred place i.e. Mungawali and Chanderi, District Ashoknagar he will not be in a position to get proper treatment of the disease and in such premises he firstly prayed for admission and allowing of this petition by quashing the transfer order Annexure P-1 till the extent of the petitioner and in alternative he prayed to dispose of this petition with direction to the authority of the respondents to consider and decide his pending representation Annexure P-3 on some early date within some time bound schedule with further direction to protect the interest of the petitioner till deciding such representation by the authority. 6. Having heard learned counsels, keeping in view the arguments advanced I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record. 7. 6. Having heard learned counsels, keeping in view the arguments advanced I have carefully gone through the papers placed on record. 7. Mere perusal of transfer order Annexure P-1, whereby, not only the petitioner but various other persons of the Department have also been transferred from one place to another on administrative grounds. 8. It is settled proposition of law that transfer of Government servant on the ground of administrative ground and exigency could not be a subject matter of judicial review before the Court unless some ulterior motive or mala fide is demonstrated on behalf of the concerning employee like petitioner. As such the transfer of the Government servant is a natural consequence of his service. In such premises, the impugned transfer order Annexure P-1 could not be interfered with by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court enumerated under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 9. So far as ground of ill health condition of the petitioner is concerned, on perusal of papers placed on record, I have not found any material deformity in the person of the petitioner on which, it can be said that he is not in a position to join and work at the place where he has been transferred vide impugned order. On such papers it appears that he has already taken treatment with respect to his disease and now he is regularly working in the Department. Thus, the impugned transfer order Annexure P-1 does not require any interference on such ground also. 10. In view of aforesaid discussions, I have not found any merit in this petition for admission. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed. 11. However, it is observed that the petitioner shall be at liberty to pursue his representation Annexure P-3 pending for adjudication with the authority of the respondents and such authority shall be at liberty to consider the same in accordance with law without influencing from any of the observations or findings made in the present order.