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

2024 Supreme(MP) 452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Smt. Anuradha Shukla, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Kunwarlal Chowkikar
Writ Appeal No. 1862 of 2024 (J); Decided on 3.10.2023*

Advocates:
B.D. Singh, Deputy A.G. for appellants/State;
Sanjay Sanyal for respondent.

Headnote:

Constitution of India -- Art. 338 -- scope -- transfer in service -- duty not joined at transferred place on basis of pendency of representation before State Scheduled Caste Commission -- tantamount to unauthorised absence from service -- Commission not empowered to interfere in service conditions of employee. 2015 (III) MPWN 25 : ILR 2015 MP 2556 relied on. (2014) 14 SCC 375 referred to. [Para 13]

Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 338 & O;kfIr & lsok esa LFkkukarj.k & jkT; vuqlwfpr tkfr vk;ksx ds le{k vH;kosnu d¢ yacu d¢ vk/kkj ij LFkkukarfjr LFkku ij dk;ZHkkj xzg.k ugha fd;k x;k & lsok ls vÁkf/kÑr vuqifLFkfr dh dksfV esa vkrk gS & deZpkjh dh lsok 'krksZ esa gLr{ksi djus d¢ fy, vk;ksx l'kDr ughaA 2015 ¼3½ eŒçŒ ohDyh u¨V~l 25 % vkb,yvkj 2015 ,eih 2556 voyafcrA ¼2014½ 14 ,llhlh 375 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13½

ORDER

Per Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari :

Heard finally with the consent of both the parties.

1. This appeal under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalay (Khandpeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed assailing the order dated 26.9.2023 passed in W.P. No. 6688/2021, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed and learned Single Judge quashed the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal (Annexure A/5) directing the appellants herein to regularize the period of service of respondent w.e.f. 1.9.2005 to 30.11.2006 and to pay the arrears of salary within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is a retired Headmaster having completed entire service tenure of 37 years and 3 months. On the basis of complaint, the respondent was transferred to Government Higher Secondary School, Khedicourt but he did not join at the transferred place of posting. The respondent challenged the said transfer order before this court by way of writ petition No. 6580/2006. Said writ petition came to be decided by directing the appellants herein to take a decision on the grievance of the respondent after giving an opportunity of hearing. In compliance of the order passed in W.P. No. 6580/2006, while deciding the representation filed by the respondent in respect of his transfer, the District Education Officer, Betul vide order dated 16.8.2005, on administrative ground, maintained the order of transfer but modified the same and in place of Government Middle School, Khedicourt, the respondent was transferred to Government Middle School, Goula (Annexure A/4). Respondent did not join his duties either in Government Middle School, Goula. Thereafter, the documents annexed with the petition show that the respondent made a complaint to M.P. State, Schedule Caste Commission, Bhopal, alleging discrimination on the basis of his caste. After examining the complaint, M.P. State, Schedule Caste Commission, Bhopal, vide its letter dated 22.4.2006 issued recommendation in favour of the respondent and in response thereof the Director, Public Instructions, Madhya Pradesh passed order dated 4.10.2006 directing the District Education Officer, District Betul to transfer the respondent according to Policy framed in the year 2006-2007 regarding transfer of the employees. He further directed to issue warning to Block Education Officer, Amla for causing harassment to the respondent. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.11.2006, the District Education Officer, Betul has posted the respondent at Government Middle School, Sasawad, District Betul on transfer as per the choice of respondent and in compliance of the said order, respondent joined his posting at transferred place. District Education Officer, Betul also issued warning to Block Education Officer, Betul not to repeat such behaviour in future. Admittedly, the respondent was absent from his duty from 1.9.2005 to 30.11.2006 and vide order dated 23.11.2016, the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal has declared the said period of absent as ‘no work no pay’, which was challenged by the respondent before this Court by way of W.P. No. 6688/2021. Learned Single Judge, in its order dated 26.9.2023 observing that the alleged unauthorized absence was not attributable to the respondent, inasmuch as the authorities themselves issued the order of cancellation of transfer and the record further reflects that the respondent was being harassed at the behest of the then Block Education Officer, Amla; accordingly, the Commissioner, Public Instructions, Bhopal vide its order dated 4.10.2006 issued clear directions to take appropriate action against the then Block Education Officer, Amla and has set aside the impugned order dated 23.11.2016 directing the appellants to regularise the period w.e.f. 1.9.2005 to 30.11.2006 and accordingly pay arrears of salary to the respo

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top