Consideration of impending retirement and balance between administrative exigency and personal inconvenience in transfer orders.

JUDGMENT

1. Challenge is being made to the transfer order dated 04.10.2022 (Annexure P-2); whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Nepa Nagar (General) Burhanpur (General) Forest Division. His name finds place at Serial No.25 in the impugned transfer order.

2. It is submitted that earlier the petitioner was transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Sohagpur (General) Hoshangabad (General Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division vide order transfer order dted 16.12.2019 and within a short span of one year he has again been transferred. The petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2023, therefore, the transfer order is in violation of the transfer policy. Apart from this, certain medical ailments are pointed out by the petitioner. He has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Geeta Jha Disoriya vs. State of M.P. and other (W.P.18675 of 2021); wherein, in similar circumstances, the petition was disposed of directing the authorities to consider the representation and till the representation is decided the petitioner was permitted to continue at the present place of posting. He has prayed for similar relief to be extended to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the State has opposed the prayer submitted that the grounds which have been raised in the petition are not made out calling interference in the transfer order in view of the judgments passed by the Division Bench in the case of R.S. Chaudhary and Others v. State of M.P. and Others, ILR (2007) MP 1329 and in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556.

4. But he fairly submits that the petitioner is due to retirement on 31.10.2023. A representation filed by him will be considered by him by the authorities expeditiously.

5. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. From a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was transferred from Sub Divisional Officer Forest Sohagpur (General) Hoshangabad (General Forest Division to Sub Divisional Officer, Forest Seoni Malwa (General) Hoshangabad (General) Forest Division vide order transfer order dted 16.12.2019 and within a short span of one year he has again been transferred. The petitioner is due for retirement on 31.10.2023. The this Court in identical circumstances the case of Geeta Jha Disoriya vs. State of M.P. and other (W.P.18675 of 2021) dated 17.09.2021 has held as under:-

"With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. Challenge is being made to the order dated 27.08.2021 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Commissionercum- Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bhopal to office of Joint Commissioner-cum-Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sagar at a distant of more than 170 Kms.

The solitary ground for challenging the transfer order is that the petitioner is at the fag end of her service career and is due to retire on 13.12.2022. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the transfer at the fag end of the service career of the petitioner is violative of condition of the transfer policy. He has placed reliance upon the orders passed by this Court on 22.07.2020 in Writ Petition No.9658/2020 [Dr. Jasram Trivedia Vs. State of M.P.] wherein, this Court considering the fact that the transfer is violative of Clause 11.8 of the transfer policy as the petitioner was transferred at the fag end of his service career has interfered in the transfer order and disposed of the writ petition directing the respondents to decide the pending representation and till the decision on the representation, the petitioner was permitted to continue at the present place of posting.

He has further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ripudaman Si