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

2021 Supreme(MP) 123

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Vishal Mishra, J.
Arun Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
The State of M.P. and Ors. – Respondents
W.P. No. 1092 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Neeraj Shrivastava, Learned Counsel
For the Respondent:Deepak Khot, Learned Govt. Advocate

The main legal point established is that transfer orders can only be interfered with in limited conditions, and compliance with guidelines and directions given by the court in previous litigations is crucial in determining the legality of the transfer.

Headnote:

Transfer - Medical Officer - W.P. No. 1416/2017, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Subhash Roy Vs. Coal India Limited, 2009 (1) MPJR 71 - R.S. Chaudhary Vs. State of M.P. ILR (2007) MP 1329 2007 - Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. I.L.R. (2015) MP 2556 - Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas, AIR, 1993 SC 244; Rajendra Roy Vs. Union of India, 1993 (1) SCC 148; State bank of India Vs. Anjan Sanyal and Others, 2001 (5) SCC 508: Airports Authority of India Vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey & Others, 2009 (8) SCC 337

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Medical Officer, was transferred from the High Court Civil Dispensary to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, Gwalior. The petitioner challenged the transfer order citing violation of guidelines and directions given by the court in a previous Public Interest Litigation.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the transfer of the petitioner was within the domain of the employer and was in line with the requirements of work. The court emphasized that transfer is a condition of service and can only be interfered with in limited conditions.

Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the transfer order, compliance with guidelines, and the petitioner's seniority.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that transfer orders can only be interfered with in limited conditions, such as gross violation of rules and regulations, impact on seniority, or malafide intent. Since none of these grounds were raised by the petitioner, the court found no reason to interfere with the transfer/posting order.

Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with the direction for the authorities to consider and decide the petitioner's representation seeking redressal of grievances within thirty days.

JUDGMENT :

Vishal Mishra, J.

1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing.

2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard. The present petition is being filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seek following reliefs:-

"7.1. That, the impugned order Annexure P-1 dated 08.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 3 may kindly be set aside to the extent of petition.

7.2 That, other relief which is deem fit in the nature of case may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. The present petition is being filed being aggrieved by the transfer and relieving-cum-attachment order dated 08.01.2021, whereby the petitioner has been shifted/transferred from the High Court Civil Dispensary to the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Hospital Superintendent, Gwalior. It is submitted that the order impugned is contrary to the directions issued in the Public Interest Litigation being W.P. No. 1416/2017 (The High Court Bar Association Vs. The State of M.P. and Others) and contrary to the guidelines issued by NUHM as well as contrary to the M.P. Public Health Measurement/Rules. It is argued that the petitioner entered into service in the respondents' department in the year 1981 as a Medical Officer and was posted at various places at Civil Dispensaries and various health centers and performed their duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. He is having an unblemished service career. He is working in a Civil Dispensary High Court Gwalior has not been relieved till date. It is submitted that the Public Interest Litigation was filed before this Court which was registered as W.P. No. 1416/2017 dated 15.12.2017 wherein a demand was made for sanction of permanent post of Doctor in Civil Dispensary in the High Court premises and the District Court premises and on the basis, the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has been posted as Medical Officer in Civil Dispensary High Court Gwalior. It is argued that in pursuance to the parameter and guidelines issued by the Health Department at Civil Dispensary and Primary Health Center only Medical Officer can be appointed and posted not specialist at all and the specialist is only entitled to be posted where only minimum 60 bedded Civil Hospital are setup for Urban Health Institution as reflected from P/5 and P/6. It is argued that in the place of the petitioner one specialist has been appointed which is contrary to the guidelines. As per the transfer policy on kinds of attachments have been completely abolished by the State Government, therefore, the transfer/attachment of the petitioner is contrary to the guidelines of transfer policy and also is contrary to the directions given by this Court in W.P. No. 1416/2017. It is submitted that he has relied upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Subhash Roy Vs. Coal India Limited, 2009 (1) MPJR 71 where it has held that the guidelines as well as the transfer policy are having the course of law, therefore there are required to be considered. He has preferred a detailed representation to the respondents authorities for redressal of his grievances but of no consequence, therefore, he knocked the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. He prayed for quashment of the impugned order.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State by filing a response to the petition has denied all the averments made in the writ petition and has contended that the earlier public interest litigation was filed before this Court seeking a direction to the State of Madhya Pradesh and its functionaries to sanction permanent posts of doctor and adequate nursing staff at dispensary in premises of the High Court Bench at Gwalior as well as the District and Sessions Court at Gwalior. 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