Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 939 (MP)

Bhim Singh Kushwah v. State of M. P.

2020-09-22

S.C.SHARMA

body2020
ORDER 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed this present petition being aggrieved by the order dated 5.3.2020 passed by the respondent No.2 transferring the petitioner from Indore to Tiger Strike Force to Satna. 2. The petitioner's contention is that Tiger Strike Force is a specialized force and the employees under the Tiger Strike Force are posted keeping in view their physical fitness and that too with their consent. 3. A policy has been framed by the State Government on the subject which has been filed along with the writ petition as Annexure-P/5 circulated vide order dated 12.3.2010. Clause – VII of the said guideline provides that in case, a person is posted in Tiger Strike Force, his consent should be sought and the Forest Guards up to the maximum age of 40 years be posted under the Tiger Strike Force. The policy has rightly been framed by the State Government in order to ensure that in case of any accident, a physically fit Forest Guard shall be able to save himself either by running away from the spot or by climbing upon a tree or by other modes, and therefore, the age has been prescribed for various cadres. For Forest Guard, Deputy Ranger and Ranger, the age is 40 years, for Assistant Conservator of Forest, the age is 50 years and for the Chief Forest Conservator, the age is 55 years. Undisputedly, the petitioner is 53 years' old. 4. The respondents in their reply have placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Gujrat Electricity Board & Another v Aatmaram Sugomal Poshani reported in (1989) 2 SCC 602 as well as the judgment delivered in the case of Arif Choudhary v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and others reported in 2007 (2) ILR MP Series 1329 and their contention is that the transfer of an employee is an incident of service and the transfer order can be passed keeping in view the administrative exigencies. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioner is continuing in or around Indore since his inception in service, and therefore, he has been transferred out keeping in view the administrative exigencies. 6. There is no quarrel in respect of the transfer of the petitioner. 5. It has also been stated that the petitioner is continuing in or around Indore since his inception in service, and therefore, he has been transferred out keeping in view the administrative exigencies. 6. There is no quarrel in respect of the transfer of the petitioner. The transfer of an employee is certainly the province of an employer, however, a conscious decision was taken by the State of Madhya Pradesh in respect of the posting of the employees under the Tiger Strike Force. The petitioner's posting is certainly contrary to the guideline framed by the State Government in respect of posting of employees and the maximum age limit provided is 40 years in respect of Forest Guard. The same policy also provides for a placement procedure and various checks have been laid down in respect of posting the employees to Tiger Strike Force. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the respondents in transferring the petitioner against their own policy decision, and therefore, the transfer order dated 5.3.2020, as the same is violative of the policy issued on the subject dated 12.3.2020, deserves to be quashed and is accordingly,quashed. 8. With the aforesaid, the present Writ Petition stands allowed.