SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2020 Supreme(MP) 1053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Prakash Shrivastava, J.
Arun Kumar Mehta v. State of M.P.
Writ Petition No. 10950 of 2020 (I); Decided on 19.10.2020.

Advocates:
L.C. Patne for petitioner; Pourush Ranka for respondent/State.

Headnote:

State Urban Engineering Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 -- Sch. I -- transfer -- petitioner working as Executive Engineer in Urban Administration and Development Department, Indore Division -- transferred to Municipal Corporation, Dewas as Incharge Superintending Engineer -- challenged transfer order -- his please that he cannot be posted in Municipal Corporation without consent, cannot be accepted -- Rules, 2015 do not provide for any separate consent -- impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity -- petition dismissed. (2013) 3 SCC 526 followed. [Paras 8 to 11

jkT; uxjh; bathfu;fjax lsok ¼HkrhZ vkSj lsok dh 'krs±½ fu;e] 2015 ¼e-iz-½ && vuq- I && LFkkukarj.k && uxjh; iz'kklu rFkk fodkl foHkkx] bankSj laHkkx eas ;kph dk;Zikyd bathfu;j ds :i ea dk;Zjr && Hkkjlkèkd vèkh{kd bathfu;j ds :i esa uxjikfyd fuxe] nsokl dks LFkkukarfjr && LFkkukarj.k vkns'k vk{ksfir && mldk ;g vfHkopu fd fcuk lgefr ds uxjikfyd fuxe ea inLFk ugha fd;k tk ldrk] Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk && fu;e] 2015 eas fdlh i`Fkd~ lgefr dk micaèk ugha && vk{ksfir vkns'k fdlh 'kSfFkY; ls xzLr ugha && ;kfpdk [kkfjtA ¼2013½ 3 ,l lh lh 526 vuqlfjrA¼iSjk 8 ls 11

ORDER

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29th July, 2020 whereby he has been transferred from Department of Urban Administration and Development, Indore Division to Municipal Corporation, Dewas as Incharge Superintending Engineer.

2. The petitioner is working as Executive Engineer and the case of the petitioner is that he is an employee of the Urban Administration Department, therefore, he cannot be sent on deputation to Municipal Corporation, Dewas without his consent.

3. The submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has not given his consent, therefore, he cannot be sent on deputation to Municipal Corporation and that he is not an employee of the Municipal Corporation and earlier also he had approached this Court and similar orders of deputation were set aside.

4. As against this, learned counsel for respondent has submitted that the transfer/deputation of the petitioner is in accordance with the Rules and no consent of the petitioner is required and earlier the correct position was not brought to this Court and the coordinate bench has dismissed the writ petition of the identically placed person who was also transferred by the same impugned order.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that undisputedly the petitioner is an employee of the Department of Urban Administration and Environment. His substantive post is Assistant Engineer and his services are governed by the M.P. State Urban Engineering Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015 (for short “The Rules of 2015”). The Schedule I of the Rules deals with classification, pay scale, number of posts, and the place of posting etc. in respect of the employees covered by the Rules. The relevant extract of the Schedule I is as under:-

6. The aforesaid Schedule in clear terms provides that out of total 50 posts of Executive Engineers five posts are reserved for deputation in Municipal Corporation and 19 for deputation in Municipal Council. Similarly out of total 24 posts of Superintending Engineer, 11 posts are reserved for deputation in Municipal Corporation, meaning thereby posting of these many Superintending Engineers and Executive Engineers on deputation to Municipal Corporation and Municipal Council is already provided in the Rules. When an officer is promoted as Executive Engineer or Superintending Engineer under the Rules of 2015, then he is aware of his deputation posting, hence his consent for posting on deputation in terms of the Rules is implicit. The Rule do not provide for any separate consent. If the plea of obtaining separate consent in such posting/deputation is accepted, then the very purpose of the Rules providing for reserve post for deputation posting, will be defeated.

7. Supreme Court also in the matter of Kavi Raj v. State of UP (2013) 3 SCC 526 in this regard has held that:-

“24-Before concluding, it is essential to deal with certain inferences drawn by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. According to the learned Single Judge, prior consent of an employee is imperative, binding, peremptory and mandatory, before he is posted on deputation outside his parent department. No statutory rule has been brought to our notice, requiring prior consent of an employee, before his deployment against a post beyond his parent cadre. The mere fact, that the appellants consent was not sought before their posting at the Government Medical College, Jammu (and/or at the hospitals associated therewith) would not, in our view have any determinative effect on the present controversy. Broadly, an employee can only be posted (or transferred) to a post against which he is selected. This would ensure his stationing, within the cadre of posts, under his principal employer. His posting may, however, be regulated differently, by statutory rules, governing his conditions of service. In the absence of any such rules, an employee cannot be posted (or transferred) beyond the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top