Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 237 (MP)

Arun Kumar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2020-02-13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 2.8.2017, whereby he has been transferred from Samarra Janpad Panchayat, Tikamgarh to Urdora Janpad Panchayat, Niwadi. The aforesaid transfer order has been challenged mainly on the ground that the petitioner is a contractual employee working under the Mahatma Gandhi Rashtriya Gramin Rojgar Scheme. It is submitted that as per the instructions issued by the respondents dated 14.7.2017 directing that the contractual employees whose service tenure of contract service is between 3 to 5 years be posted within Panchayat and the employees whose service tenure of contract is 5 years or more than 5 years, they may be posted in Janpad Panchayat but within the district. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Full Bench in the case of Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Text Book Corporation and another, 2010(2) M.P.L.J. 662 wherein it has been held that a daily rated employee, who is not appointed to a post and whose services are not governed by any service rules, cannot be transferred from one place to another, as he does not hold a transferable service. The petitioner is not a daily rated employee but is a contractual employee, therefore, the said judgment would not apply to the present case. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that now there is an amendment in the policy and contractual employees can be transferred. However, the respondents have failed to produce any policy in this regard permitting transfer of a contract employee from one place to another. 4. Taking into consideration the fact that the impugned order dated 2.8.2017 was stayed by this court on 11.8.2017 and also the fact that the respondents have failed to show any provisions under the Rules or Policy permitting transfer of a contract employee from one place to another, we deem it proper to quash the impugned transfer order dated 2.8.2017, so far as it relates to the petitioner. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to issue fresh transfer order in accordance with law, in case, if administrative exigency requires. 5. With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is allowed and disposed of. ..................