Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 20 (MP)

Anupam Gupta v. State of M. P.

2024-01-04

RAVI MALIMATH, VISHAL MISHRA

body2024
ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 18.7.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.16658 of 2023, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the writ petitioner is a Class IV employee and is presently posted as a Line Attendant in Shahdol. The petitioner has discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and dedication. It is contended that vide impugned order dated 26.6.2023 the petitioner has been transferred from Shahdol to Pichhore, Bina which is more than 300 Kms away from the present place of posting. That, the transfer order has been passed without any administrative exigency. 3. Challenge made to the impugned order is on the ground that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner has been transferred in a routine manner and there is no administrative exigency. The petitioner is the sole bread earner of his family and he has to look after his ailing parents who require medical attention. It is submitted that the services cannot be transferred under the practice of respondent/company. It is submitted that no one has been transferred in place of the petitioner. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the fact that the writ petitioner has been transferred to a place which is 300 Km away from the present place of posting. The appellant is the only bread earner of his family and if he is being transferred then he has to face personal difficulty and great hardships in maintaining his family. Hence, this appeal. 4. Per contra, State counsel has supported the impugned order. That, the learned Writ Court while considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition. It is contended that the transfer is an exigency of service and the employee has no right to claim posting at his present place of posting. The writ petitioner could not point out any malafides in the impugned transfer order. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.38,000/- per month, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner is a low paid employee. Hence, he has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 6. From a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the petitioner is getting salary of Rs.38,000/- per month, therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petitioner is a low paid employee. The petitioner could not point out any malafides in the impugned transfer order. So far as the contention with regard to personal difficulties is concerned, it is for the employer to look into the same. The Court is not supposed to interfere with the administration particularly with regard to transfers, which are not outcome of mala fide, biasness or vindictiveness. Since the impugned order of transfer was passed owing to administrative exigency, in our opinion, the learned Writ Court has rightly dismissed the writ petition. Interference by the Courts with transfer orders should be in very rare cases. 7. The law with respect to transfers is well settled in large number of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Union of India and Ors v. S.L. Abbas reported in AIR 1993 SC 2444 , S.K. Nausad Rahaman and others v. Union of India and others reported in 2022 (2) JLJ 147 ; Gujrat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani reported in (1989) 2 SCC 602 and in the case of State of U.P. and another v. Siya Ram and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC 405 and also by the Division Bench of this Court in the cases of R.S. Chaudhary and others v. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2007) MP 1329 and Mridul Kumar Sharma v. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556. Transfer being one of the conditions of service can only be interfered in exceptional circumstances i.e., if the same is an outcome of mala fides or an outcome of colourable exercise of power on the part of the authorities or changing the service conditions of the employee. 8. Under these circumstances, when the impugned order is tested on the anvil o f the above facts, we do not perceive any error therein. No illegality is committed by the learned Writ Court in dismissing the writ petition preferred by the writ petitioner. 9. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.