Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 225 (MP)

Gujranwala Gadwanshi v. State of M. P.

2018-02-26

S.C.SHARMA

body2018
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 10.7.2017 passed by Deputy Transport Commissioner. The petitioner’s contentions is that she is residing at Indore along with her widow mother and minor children and has not completed three years’ of tenure at Indore. 2. The petitioner has also stated that she is a ‘Vikram Awardee’ and she was given appointment on 19.12.2011 as Assistant Grade-III in the Transport Department keeping in view her performance in the field of sports. 3. It has been stated in the writ petition that no request was made at any point of time, however, the transfer order reveal that she is being transferred out of Indore at her own request. 4. A reply has been filed in the matter and while the matter was pending before this Court, wisdom prevailed upon the respondents and they have deleted the word ‘own cost’ from the impugned transfer order. Now, a stand has been taken by the respondents that the transfer order has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies. 5. This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition as well as the reply filed by the respondents. The petitioner has not at all completed three years’ tenure at Indore. She is looking after her minor daughter, who is studying at Indore. She is looking after her aged mother-in-law as well as her own widow mother. 6. No reason has been assigned in the return except for making bald statement that the transfer order has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies. It is true that transfer of an employee is the sole domain of the employer and at the same time, the transfer policy issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh has to be followed. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the petitioner has not completed three years’ tenure, the transfer order is certainly contrary to the transfer policy issued by the State Government. 8. There is no representation on behalf of private respondent No. 5 in spite of service of notice. 9. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, keeping in view that there is violation in the policy, is of the opinion that transfer dated 10.7.2017 deserves to be quashed, and is accordingly quashed. 10. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed.