The transfer of contract employees is permissible under certain conditions as provided in the terms of the contract and relevant policies.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Shrivastava, J.

1. Heard.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.03.2021 whereby the petitioner who is working as District Project Manager has been transferred from Jabalpur to Jhabua.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a contract employee and, therefore, she cannot be transferred and that the transfer in the garb of rationalization cannot be sustained and the transfer order will cause hardship to the petitioner as she is required to look after old ailing parents.

3. Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that the transfer of the petitioner is as per policy and the similar petitions have already been dismissed.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the impugned order of transfer is a general order of transfer whereby several such Project Managers have been transferred. The competency of the authority to pass the impugned transfer order has not been questioned. The order further reflects that the petitioner has been transferred in terms of clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24.02.2020, which permits the transfer under special circumstances on the administrative ground. The Circular dated 19.02.2021 makes it clear that the transfer is nothing but rationalization. Similar issue had come up before this Court in the matter of Rabikant Tiwari Vs. State of M.P. and others in W.P. No. 15911/2020 and other connected batch of petitions and this Court while dismissing the petition by order dated 27.02.2021 has held that :

"5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on the perusal of the record, it is noticed that though the appointment of the petitioner is on contract basis but the appointment order dated 01.09.2015 itself contains the following conditions:

15- vkidh inLFkkiuk iz'kklfud vk/kkj ij fe'ku ds ftyksa esa ifjofrZr@LFkkukarfjr djus dk vf/kdkj jkT; vkthfodk Qksje@,uvkj,y,e dks gksxkA

The policy circular dated 24.02.2020 has been placed on record and the said circular contained provision in respect of the transfer:

9-1 lafonk veys dh fu;qfDr LFkku fo'ks"k ,oa dk;Z fo'ks"k ds fy;s gksus ds dkj.k LFkkukarj.k dk izko/kku ugha gSA izk'kklfud O;oLFkkvksa dks ns[krs gq, fo'ks"k ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxkA lafonk vuqca/k lekIr dj LFkku gsrq uohu vuqca/k fd;s tkus dh Lohd`fr nh tk ldrh gSA uohu vuqca/k dh vof/k dk;Z ij mifLFkfr fnukad ls ml foRrh; o"kZ dh 31 ekpZ rd gh gksxhA

The above clause has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 1027/2021 vide order dated 05.02.2021 in the case of Shabana Begum vs. State of M.P. and others and it has been held that the said clause permits transfer. The view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the matter of Shabana Begum (supra) after noting clause 9.1 of the policy reads as under:

"The impugned order has been issued under Clause 9.1 of the circular. From plain reading of Clause 3.3 of the circular, it is clear that in case of change of place, a fresh agreement shall be executed at the changed place.

Clause 9.1 is in two parts. The first part of this Clause provides that the contractual employee shall be appointed for a particular place and for discharging particular duties and there is no provision for transfer. However, the second part of this clause provides that in view of administrative exigencies, under special circumstances a contractual employee can be transferred and in that situation after changing the place of posting, permission for execution of new agreement at the changed place can be granted and the tenure of the contractual employee at the changed place would be from the date of his posting till 31st March of the financial year. Thus, it is clear that there is no absolute bar to the effect that a contractual employee appointed for a particular place cannot be shifted/transferred under any circumstances. The only requirement is that since the agreement is always