Transfer of contractual employees is permissible only under special circumstances, and failure to demonstrate such circumstances renders the transfer order unsustainable.

By the instant petition, the petitioner is raising grievance in respect of transfer order dated 17.08.2023 (Annexure P/7) whereby she has again been transferred from Katni to Umariya that too within a period of 27 days. It is pertinent to mention here that by order dated 20.07.2023, petitioner was transferred from Dheemarkheda to Rithi, District Katni and within a very short period of 27 days, she has again been transferred. Petitioner is also challenging the order dated 12.03.2024 whereby her representation challenging the order of her transfer has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being a contractual employee cannot be transferred as per the condition contained in her appointment order and also in view of the orders passed by the High Court from time-to-time granting protection to contractual employees.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is a policy dated 24.02.202 which contains a clause for transferring a contractual employee from one place to another that too under special circumstances contained in Clause- 9.1 of the policy. 4. The Division Bench in the case of Anurag Nigam Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others in W.A. No.1206 of 2023 , considering the policy of transfer and Clause-9.1, observed as under:-

"8. This is not in dispute between the parties that Clause 9.1 of the Circular/Policy was considered by the Division Bench in Seema Pasi (supra). Clause 9.1 of Circular reads as under :- “ 9 LFkku ifjorZu 9 LFkku ifjorZu %& 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 LFkkukarj.k dk izko/kku ugha gSA iz’kklfud O;oLFkkvksa dks ns[krs gq, fo’ks"k

fo’ks"k

ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxkA ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa LFkkukarj.k fd;k tk ldsxkA lafonk vuqca/k lekIr dj LFkku ifjorZu djrs gq, leku dk;Z o ifjofrZr LFkku gsrq uohu vuqc/ak 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 dh gksxhA** (Emphasis supplied)

9. A plain reading of this provision makes it clear that contractual employee is appointed for special work and for a particular place and, therefore, there exists no provision of transfer. However, in administrative exigency, in ‘special circumstances’ his/her transfer is permissible. This point came up for consideration in Seema Pasi (supra) and this Court opined as under :-

“9. Transfer of contractual employees has been permitted by virtue of Clause 9.1 of the Circular, dated 24-02-2020 only in special circumstances. The respondents have failed to show, that there are special circumstances, under which the appellant has been transferred. It is not the case of the respondents No.2 and 4 that there is any administrative exigency in respect of continuation of the appellant at Jabalpur. The respondent No.5 and her husband have been transferred at Jabalpur on their own request, which is evincible from the request letter submitted by the respondent No.5 and her husband, which has been placed on record as Annexure-RJ/1. It is discernible, that at Jabalpur the appellant was posted and only one post was available. Under the policy – rationalization the appellant could not be transferred, because she was not a surplus employee at Jabalpur. The rationalization can take place, only to shift/transfer the employees who are surplus at one place, and at the other place the posts are vacant.

10. The respondents have utterly failed to demonstrate the special circumstances and administrative exigencies, to transfer the appellant from Jabalpur to Anuppur. The learned Single Judge has observed that the service of the appellant, being a contractual employee, is transferable. It is not in dispute that the services of contractual employees can be transferred as per Clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24-02-2020, but only in special circumstances and administrative exigencies, and not otherwise. The answering respondents have faile