Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 989 (MP)

Geeta Manjhi v. State of M. P.

2016-11-03

ANAND PATHAK, GEETA MANJHI

body2016
ORDER 1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) whereby the order of transfer of petitioner has been modified and she has been posted as Chief Municipal Officer (for brevity 'CMO'), Municipal Council, Pichhore District Gwalior to the same position at Municipal Council, Pichhore District Shivpuri. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 3.8.2015 (Annexure P-3) petitioner has been promoted from the post of A.G. grade -III to CMO, Municipal Council, Antri District Gwalior. It appears from the record that she was transferred from Municipal Council, Antri, District Gwalior to Municipal Council, Banmore, District Morena and therefore, the person who was working at Banmore has preferred a writ petition bearing No.4604/2016 and and order dated 11.7.2016 has been passed vide Annexure P-4 by this Court. 3. Later on, vide order dated 12.9.2016 (Annexure P-5) she has been transferred from Municipal Council, Banmore District Morena to Municipal Council, Pichhore, District Shivpuri. Within a week the said order has been modified by the State Government vide order dated 19.9.2016 (Annexure P-6) whereby the petitioner was treated to be posted at Municipal Council, Pichhore District Gwalior. Thereafter, when the petitioner intended to join at Gwalior she came to know that respondent No.3 is already working at Municipal Council, Pichhore District Gwalior. Meanwhile, impugned order dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure P-1) has been passed wherein the petitioner has been again shifted from Municipal Council, Pichhore, District Gwalior to Municipal Council, Pichhore District Shivpuri. 4. Learned counsel for the State opposed the petition and prayed for dismissal of the same. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 filed reply and submitted that respondent No.3 is at present working as in-charge CMO, Municipal Council, Pichhore District, Gwalior. According to him, he is from the cadre of Revenue Sub-Inspector which is feeder cadre of the CMO (C-category) and the modification order dated 19.9.2016 (Annexure P-6) has been passed without taking consent from the concerned Minister of the department and therefore, the anomalous situation has arisen wherein the petitioner has been posted on the post which is already occupied by respondent No.3 as in-charge CMO. On the basis of note-sheet appended with the reply, counsel for respondent No.3 tried to demonstrate that the order of posting of respondent No.3 has been issued after due approval from the concerned Minister. On the basis of note-sheet appended with the reply, counsel for respondent No.3 tried to demonstrate that the order of posting of respondent No.3 has been issued after due approval from the concerned Minister. Therefore, the order of modification could have only be passed in accordance with rules of business. He further relied upon the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in writ petition No.8432/2015 by this Court wherein the direction has been issued for consideration of the representation of the petitioner. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. At present, respondent No.3 is working as in-charge CMO, Municipal Council, Pichhore District Gwalior. The State Government has posted respondent No.3 on the said post which is reflected through the documents placed by respondent No.3 along with reply. The State Government itself has created anomalous situation by passing the modification order dated 19.9.2016 (Annexure P-6) wherein the earlier posting order of petitioner at Municipal Council, Pichhore District Shivpuri has been modified to Municipal Council, Pichhore District Gwalior. Two “Municipal Councils Pichhore” exist in the State of Madhya Pradesh; one is at Shivpuri and another is at Gwalior. 8. The appropriate authority for ironing out the creases is State Government in the present controversy because two mutual contradictory orders are existing; one is dated 25.2.2016 (Annexure R-3/4) wherein respondent No.3 has been posted at Municipal Council, Pichhore, District Gwalior and another is order dated 19.9.2016 (Annexure P-6). Earlier order dated 25.2.2016 has been passed by the Commissioner, Urban Administration and Development whereas latter order is passed by the State Government, Department of Urban Administration and Development. 9. Resultantly, the petition is disposed of with the following directions : i) Petitioner shall prefer a representation to respondent No.1, annexing all the relevant documents and regulations in support of her claim within ten days from today. ii) If any representation is preferred by the petitioner within the stipulated period then the same shall be considered by the authority concerned in accordance with law considering the relevant circular/guidelines issued by the State Government from time to time. iii) If required, the authority concerned would give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 in accordance with law. iv) While considering the representation of petitioner, the plea of frequent transfers of the petitioner and the grounds raised by respondent No.3 in his reply shall be considered. iii) If required, the authority concerned would give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 in accordance with law. iv) While considering the representation of petitioner, the plea of frequent transfers of the petitioner and the grounds raised by respondent No.3 in his reply shall be considered. v) The case of parties shall be decided within fifteen days from the date of receipt of representation. 10. Meanwhile, the order impugned Annexure P-1 shall remain in abeyance and status quo as it exists today shall be maintained by the parties till decision on representation of petitioner. It is further observed that no financial loss shall be caused to the petitioner as well as respondent No.3 till decision on representation of petitioner. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 12. Petition stands disposed of. D. P. Singh for petitioner; G. S. Chauhan, Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2/State; Jitendra Sharma for respondent No.3.