The court has the power to direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding his transfer within a time-bound period and allow the petitioner to continue working at his present place of posting until the representation is decided.

Headnote:
Transfer - Homeguard - Article 226 - The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation regarding his transfer within a time-bound period and allowed the petitioner to continue working at his present place of posting until the representation is decided.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Homeguard, was transferred on deputation to Tikamgarh, which is around 185.5 km from his present place of posting. The petitioner had given consent for transfer only to his home district, and he filed a representation before the respondents, which was not decided.
Finding of the Court:

The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's fresh representation along with all relevant documents within a period of two weeks and decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks. The court also allowed the petitioner to continue working at his present place of posting until the representation is decided.
Issues: Whether the transfer order of the petitioner to Tikamgarh, which is around 185.5 km from his present place of posting, is valid and in accordance with the petitioner's consent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court did not comment on the merits of the matter and directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation within a time-bound period, as the petitioner had given consent for transfer only to his home district.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's fresh representation and decide the same within a time-bound period, and the petitioner was allowed to continue working at his present place of posting until the representation is decided.

ORDER

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner against the transfer order dated 14/06/2023, whereby he on deputation had been sent to SDRF to that District which was never opted by the petitioner.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working on the post of Homeguard and he has been transferred on deputation to Tikamgarh which is around 185.5 km far from his present place of posting and the petitioner gave gave consent for transfer at home district only and for the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner had also filed a representation before the respondents, which has not been decided till now.

3. Counsel for the respondents/State has submitted that if the petitioner files a fresh representation, then the same will be considered and decided in accordance with law within a time bound period.

4. Hence, without commenting upon the merits of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file separate fresh representation along with all relevant documents before the concerned respondent/competent authority within a period of two weeks which shall be decide by the concerned respondent/competent authority in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order within a further period of four weeks.

5. Till the representation of the petitioner is decided, the petitioner shall be allowed to work at the present place of posting.

C.c. as per rules. (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document