2025 Supreme(Online)(MP) 3992
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Dr. Nitin Kumar Singhai – Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya – Respondent
WP 35440/2024
Warija Ghildiyal,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN th ON THE 8 OF JULY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 35440 of 2024 DR. NITIN KUMAR SINGHAI Versus JAWAHARLAL NEHRU KRISHI VISHWAVIDYALAYA AND OTHERS Appearance:
Shri K.C. Ghildiyal Senior Advocate with Shri Kapil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner .
Shri Arpan Pawar Senior Advocate With Shri Rahul Pathak Advocate for the respondents.
Shri Praveen Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No. -3.
ORDER The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P/1 dated 29.10.2020 whereby the petitioner who was working on the post of Programme Assistant/ Agronomy in Krishi Vigyan Kendra under the respondent-University has been transferred in the same capacity and same payscale and posted to Krishi Vigyan Kendra Badgaon District-Balaghat, temporarily, until further orders.
2. By order Annexure P/2 dated 30.10.2024, he has been relieved to join at transferred place which is also under challenge. On 02.12.2024, this court has granted interim stay on the transfer order and permitted the petitioner to work at Krishi Vigyan Kendra (for short “KVK”), Jabalpur.
3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been transferred by way of an order which is actuated by malice and at instance of respondent No. 2. It is contended that the petitioner was holding the powers of Drawing and Disbursing officer (“DDO” for short) at KVK Jabalpur. All the KVKs under the respondent University including KVK Jabalpur function under a project of Indian Council for Agriculture Research (“ICAR” for short) and the funds and Signature Not Verified Signed by: ARVIND KUMAR salaries for the employees working under KVKs come from ICAR. As there was some delay in receipt of salary of employees working in KVKs, various employees filed writ petitions before this Court including W.P. No. 23861/2024 wherein this Court passed orders from time to time to ensure payment of salaries to the employees who were the petitioners before this Court. One such order was passed on 22.08.2024 whereby this Court directed that whatever allowance and benefits which are provided to the petitioners therein being employed with the University, shall continue because there cannot be any curtailments in those allowances and benefits till next date of hearing.
4. It is vehemently argued that the respondent No. 2 wanted salaries of only the petitioners therein to be released and when the funds were received from ICAR, the Comptroller of University vide order dated 28.10.2024 Annexure P/4 sanctioned an amount of Rs. 50,43,040/- for payment of salary to employees of KVK Jabalpur. The petitioner had passed an order on 25.10.2024 disbursing the salaries which was within the limit of the amount of Rs. 50,43,040/- allotted by the Comptroller. However, on 30.10.2024 the budget sanctioned to KVK, Jabalpur was reduced to Rs. 20,95,903/- which was at the instance of respondent No. 2 because the respondent No. 2 had passed an order on 24.10.2024 that the petitioners in the pending writ petitions before this Court would get allowances and benefits and he intended by the said order Annexure P/8 that the allowances and the benefits should be released only to those employees who were the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions pending in the matter of payment of salary before this Court and to no other employees. Though the order Annexure P/8 did not specially said so but it was so intended by the respondent No. 2. When the petitioner being DDO decided to draw the salary of all the staff because there was sufficient fund for that purpose, that the respondent No. 2 took it as a personal attack on his authority and brought about the transfer of the petitioner immediately thereafter on 29.10.2024. It is contended that the petitioner has only tried to draw the salary of the staff and the budget for the same was duly sanctioned by the ICAR. There is no allegation that the petitioner has drawn t