Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 679 (MP)

Amitesh Chaturvedi v. State of M. P.

2015-07-02

R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 2.6.2015 by which the petitioner, who is working as Medical Officer, has been transferred from Primary Health Centre, Sonpur, District Jabalpur to District Hospital Seoni. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner joined his services at Civil Hospital Sehore and thereafter was transferred to Community Health Centre, Panagar, District Jabalpur and within a short span of time, the petitioner was again transferred out. It is submitted that the petitioner's father is suffering from paralysis and has a two year old son and, therefore, is he facing untold hardship. It is also submitted that the wife of the petitioner has been transferred to Jabalpur and in view of the policy of the State Government which provides for keeping the husband and wife together, the impugned order of transfer be quashed. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner it is observed that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of R. S. Chaudhary v. State of M.P. and others [ILR (2007) MP 1329], has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation seeking cancellation/modification of the order of transfer. It is further observed that in the instant case the petitioner has filed a representation before the authorities which is pending. 5. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent authorities within fifteen week from today along with a copy of the order passed today and a copy of the petition, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the representation filed by the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with the transfer policy preferably within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner would also be at liberty to move an application seeking stay of the order of transfer under para 14 of the transfer policy. Till decision on his representation the operation of the impugned order dated 2.6.2015 as far as far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed. 6. The petitioner would also be at liberty to move an application seeking stay of the order of transfer under para 14 of the transfer policy. Till decision on his representation the operation of the impugned order dated 2.6.2015 as far as far as it relates to the petitioner shall remain stayed. 6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of.