Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 773 (MP)

Kailash Waskel v. State of M. P.

2020-08-05

S.C SHARMA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 5.7.2019 and the order rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 3.8.2019. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was posted at Indore on 24.11.2016 and after completion of almost three years, he was transferred vide order dated 5.7.2019. The transfer policy provides for a representation and the petitioner did submit a representation and at the same time approached this Court by filing a writ petition i.e. W.P. No.15595/2019. 3. This Court as the transfer policy provides for submission of a representation disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to decide the petitioner's representation. The petitioner's representation was already available with the respondents and the respondents proceeded ahead based upon the transfer policy and the petitioner's representation was rejected on 3.8.2019. The petitioner has again challenged the transfer order dated 5.7.2019 and the order rejecting his representation. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court, the transfer order has been passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies and the order does not warrant any interference as the petitioner was transferred after completion of three years almost and it is not a case where the petitioner is a victim of frequent transfers. 5. At no point of time, any interim order was granted by this Court and while disposing of the writ petition in the first round vide order dated 2.8.2019 again no interim order was granted, meaning thereby, the petitioner himself opted not to proceed on transfer without there being any interim order passed by this Court or by any higher authority. The transfer of a government servant is the sole domain of the employer and the transfer order does not warrant any interference if it is not against the violative of statutory provisions or suffers from malafide. In the considered opinion of this Court, no case for interference is made out in the matter. The petitioner should report at the transferred place immediately, if not reported so far. 6. The grievance has also been made by the petitioner that his salary has not been paid. There was no interim order in favour of the petitioner and therefore, this Court cannot direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner as he has not joined at the transferred place. 6. The grievance has also been made by the petitioner that his salary has not been paid. There was no interim order in favour of the petitioner and therefore, this Court cannot direct the respondents to pay the salary to the petitioner as he has not joined at the transferred place. The petitioner shall be free to file an appropriate application before his employer for grant of salary, for grant of leave or for regularizing the period in which he has not served the State. In case, such an application is preferred, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law. With the aforesaid, present petition stands disposed of.