Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 76
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sanjay Dwivedi, J.
Vinaydeep Khalkho v. State of M.P. and another
Writ Petition No. 2790 of 2023 (J.); Decided on 2.2.2023
Subject
Administrative Law - Transfer of Government Employees
Headnote
Civil Services -- transfer -- exhaustive representation against transfer order showing personal difficulties -- rejected without assigning any reason -- rejection order illegal -- set aside -- direction issued to pass reasoned order on representation afresh. [Paras 2 & 4]
flfoy lsok & LFkkukarj.k & O;fDrxr dfBukb;ka n'kkZrs gq,] LFkkukarj.k vkns'k d¢ fo#) foLr`r vH;kosnu & d¨Ã dkj.k fn, fcuk ukeatwj & ukeatwjh vkns'k voSèk & vikLr & vH;kosnu ij u, fljs ls ldkj.k vkns'k ikfjr djus dk funs'k tkjhA ¼iSjk 2 ,oa 4½
Ayur Jain for petitioner; Darshan Soni, Government Advocate, for respondents.
ORDER
1. Being aggrieved with the order of transfer dated 5th October, 2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioner from Anuppur to Mandla, he made a representation to the authority but that representation has been decided by the authority vide order dated 27.1.2023 (Annexure P/6) rejecting the same without assigning any reason thereof, therefore petitioner has filed this petition s.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner raised personal difficulty in his representation saying that his wife is also a government employee and at present she is working nearby a place of posting of the petitioner and after transfer of the petitioner from Anuppur to Mandla, the distance between the place of posting of wife and the applicant would be more than 250 Kms.. Counsel submits that petitioner is having two children and one children is facing some heart problem and getting treatment in Gudgaon (Haryana) and as such it is difficult for the petitioner to comply the order of transfer. He submits that when the representation made by the petitioner was very exhaustive showing personal difficulties and mentioning that nobody has been brought in his place, the authority was under obligation to assign reason for rejecting the request made by the petitioner, but the same has not been done and therefore the order is illegal.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that this petition can be disposed of directing authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh by assigning reason.
4. Considering the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 27.1.2023 (Annexure P/6) rejecting the representation of the petitioner. The respondent No. 2 is directed to pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner afresh. It is also directed that if nobody has joined in place of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be allowed to continue for a further period of 30 days within which the authority shall taker appropriate decision on the representation of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid, this petition is disposed of.
