Back
2023 Supreme(MP) 157
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Anand Pathak, J.
Akhilesh Kumar Gautam v. State of M.P.
Miscellaneous Petition No. 8981 of 2023 (J); Decided on 24.4.2023
Vikas Mishra for petitioners; Gulab Koli Patel, Government Advocate, for State; Manon Agarwal for respondents No. 2 and 4.
Headnote:
Civil Services -- transfer -- stay on transfer made absolute -- transfer order stood quashed by implication -- order of relieving made on strength of transfer order quashed -- however, respondents free to make fresh orders of transfer on touchstone of administrative exigency, individual assessment and policy of department. [Paras 5 to 7]
flfoy lsok & LFkkukarj.k & LFkkukarj.k ij jksd dks vafre fd;k x;k & LFkkukarj.k vkns'k foof{kr :i ls vfHk[kafMr gks x;k & LFkkukarj.k vkns'k d¢ cy ij fd;k x;k voeqfDr vkns'k vfHk[kafMr & rFkkfi] Á'kklfud vR;ko';drk] oS;fDrd fu/kkZj.k rFkk foHkkx dh uhfr dh dlkSVh ij u, fljs ls LFkkukarj.k vkns'k djus ds fy, ÁR;FkhZx.k Lora=A ¼iSjk 5 ls 7½
ORDER
1. Petitioner's grievance is that petitioner has been relieved vide order dated 11.4.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Madhya Pradesh D.A.Y. State Rural Livelihood Mission, wherein name of the petitioner appears at S.No.4, despite the fact that this Court had made the stay absolute and had given liberty to the respondents to determine the terms and conditions of the contract and if petitioner is likely to continue on the strength of his individual assessment, then transfer him as per the policy and keeping in mind the administrative exigency.
2. It is submitted that all the three aspects, namely, consideration of the policy, administrative exigency and individual assessment, have not been made and in a mechanical manner, petitioner is being relieved without passing any fresh order.
3. Shri Manan Agrawal submits that as per clause 3.3 of the circular dated 24.2.2020, if a person except for the District Project Manager, can be transferred and such transferred person is required to execute a new contract bond. It is submitted that there is huge shortage of staff at the transferred place and, therefore, respondents be permitted to transfer them.
4. The issue involved in this petition is not regarding transfer. Issue involved herein is that without passing a fresh transfer order, after considering the requirements of posting a person at a particular place on the touchstone of the administrative exigency, keeping in mind the policy and also keeping in mind the individual assessment, petitioners are being relieved in compliance of an order in which stay was made absolute as it was allowed to remain in force for about 18 months.
5. Thus, once stay was made absolute by implication the order was quashed and, therefore, the respondents were free to pass fresh orders on the touchstone of the above three grounds.
6. Thus, the order of relieving as far as petitioner is concerned, is hereby quashed.
7. However, respondents will be at liberty to pass fresh orders of transfer taking into consideration the aforesaid three factors, namely, administrative exigency, suitability of the petitioner i.e. his individual assessment and also in terms of the policy of the department.
8. In above terms, this writ petition is disposed of.
C.C. as per rules.
