ORDER

1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution assails the order dated 22.6.2020 whereby the petitioner is directed to work at District Umariya against the vacant post of Programme Officer. It was directed that new contract of petitioner be executed at District Umariya.

3. Criticizing this order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order dated 22.6.2020 itself makes it clear that as per the condition of contract, the work of contractual employees is to be extracted/taken at the same place where he was appointed.

4. By placing reliance on the document dated 21.5.2020 Annexure RJ-1, it is argued that the apex body, i.e., the Directorate of Panchayat and Rural Development Department in video conferencing decided to extend the contract for a period for one year. As per this policy decision taken at the apex level, the subordinate authorities including the Jila Panchayat, Katni is now required to undertake the consequential ministerial exercise and enter into the consequential contract relating to the extension of service. Accordingly, by order dated 22.5.2020 Annexure RJ-2, the applicant’s ACRs were produced before the learned CEO with the request to issue necessary order for extension of the contract.

5. After having taken a policy decision on apex level, it is no more open to the respondents to direct the petitioner to work on a different place other than the place where he was working pursuant to his appointment.

6. Prayer is opposed by the learned Dy. Advocate General on the strength of the policy dated 1.12.2015 wherein in clause 11 it was mentioned that after issuance of contractual order of appointment, the employee needs to join at the place of posting otherwise his order will be cancelled automatically. If the applicant is interested to continue, he has to enter into new contract at District Umariya.

7. Learned Dy. Advocate General also placed reliance on the order passed by this Court in W. P. No. 8150/2011 (Rajendra Prasad Bakoriya v. Secretary, The State of M. P.) Annexure R-6 to bolster his submission that either for enforcement of contract or for challenging the termination of contractual appointment, the remedy is elsewhere and not before this Court.

8. No other point is pressed by counsel for the parties.

9. I have heard counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

10. The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 22.6.2020 reads as under :

ß@@vkns'k@@

Hkksiky] fnukad 02

Ø@8@0@,uvkjbZth,l&e-iz-@LFkk-@,uvkj&2@2020] egkRek xka/kh ujsxk varxZr lafonk vf/kdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk vuqcaèk fu"ikfnr dj mudh lsok ysus ds fy;s ftyk dysDVj ¼ftyk dk;ZØe leUo;d½ dks vfèkdkj izR;k;ksftr fd;s x;s gSA lafonk vfèkdkfj;ksa@deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDRk ^^dk;Z fo'ks"k ,oa LFkku fo'ks"k** ds fy;s gksus ds dkj.k LFkkukarj.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA

bl ifjizs{; esa Jh vthr flag] lafonk vfrfjDr dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh] tuin iapk;r cgksjh can ftyk dVuh dks vkxkeh vkns'k rd ftyk mefj;k esa fjDr vfrfjDr dk;ZØe vfèkdkjh ds in ij dk;Z djus gsrq vknsf'kr fd;k tkrk gSA

vr% Jh vthr flag] lafonk vfrfjDr dk;ZØe vf/kdkjh dk uohu vuqca/k ftyk mefj;k esa fu"ikfnr fd;k tkosA

vk;qDr }kjk vuqeksfnr

¼izHkkr mbds½

la;qDr vk;qDr ¼iz’kk-½

e/;izns'k jkT; jkstxkj xkjaVh ifj"knÞ

(Emphasis supplied)

11. A careful reading of this order leaves no room for any doubt that respondents are conscious of the fact that contractual employee cannot be transferred by posting him to a different place than the place on which he was appointed. Indisputably, the policy decision is already taken to continue the contractual employment of the existing employee. Pertinently, in the order dated 21.5.2020, it is mentioned as under :

ßlanfHkZr i= 03 ds ek/;e ls vij eq[; lfpo] e-iz- 'kklu iapk;r ,oa xzkeh.k fodkl foHkkx dh ohfM;ks dkWUÝsaflax fnukad 16-4-2020 dks eujsxk ;kstuk esa lafonk esa inLFk yksd lsodksa gsrq lafonk o`f) gsrq fuEukuqlkj funsZ'k fn, x, gSa&