Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 827
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Nandita Dubey, J.
Rajkumar Bilthariya - Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. And Another - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 14969 of 2020
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Priyank Choubey, Advocate, Anand Nayak, Advocate
The court emphasized the right of the petitioner to file a representation and stayed the transfer order pending the decision on the representation.
Headnote:
Transfer Policy - Administrative Exigency - The court disposed of the petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authority concerned within a period of seven days, and the impugned transfer order was stayed for a period of four weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the transfer order on the ground of having less than one year left for retirement, citing clause 11.8 of the transfer policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court disposed of the petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authority concerned within a period of seven days, and the impugned transfer order was stayed for a period of four weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier. The court clarified that it has not opined on the merits of the case.
Issues: Challenge to transfer order based on clause 11.8 of the transfer policy and the petitioner's impending retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner can file a representation before the authority concerned within a period of seven days, and the impugned transfer order was stayed for a period of four weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier.
Final Decision: The court disposed of the petition with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the authority concerned within a period of seven days, and the impugned transfer order was stayed for a period of four weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier.
JUDGMENT
Nandita Dubey, J. - This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Municipal Corporation, Sagar to Municipal Corporation, Dewas on the same post.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has less than one year to retire as he is going to superannuate in the month of May,2021. It is submitted that as per clause 11.8 of transfer policy dated 4th June, 2019 those employees who have less than an year for their superannuation should normally be not transferred. It is prayed that on this ground, his transfer order may be stayed.
3. Learned PL appearing for the State has opposed the aforesaid prayer. It is submitted that clause 11.8 is not mandatory. In case of administrative exigency,even an employee having less than one year left for his retirement can still be transferred. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not challenged his transfer order on any other ground nor has he filed any representation before the authority concerned.
4. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a representation before the respondents/authority concerned within a period of seven days from today along with certified copy/e-copy of the order passed today, who, in turn, shall consider and decide the same as per rules and policy within a further period of three weeks.
5. For a period of four weeks or till the representation is decided, whichever is earlier, the impugned order dated 25.09.2020 (Annexure P/1), so far as it relates to the petitioner, shall remain stayed
6. However, it is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case.
7. Certified copy/e-copy as per rules/directions.
