IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA, CHIEF JUSTICE &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

th

ON THE 20 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT APPEAL No. 2700 of 2025 ARVIND KUMAR BORKAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vikas Mishra - Advocate for Appellant.

Shri Anubhav Jain - Government Advocate for Respondents/State.

ORDER Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vinay Saraf Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2025 passed in WP No.34978 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant assailing the order of transfer dated 17.06.2025, the appellant has preferred the instant intra court appeal under Section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalay Adhiniyam, 2005.

2. Heard Shri Vikas Mishra, Advocate on behalf of petitioner and Shri Anubhav Jain, Government Advocate on behalf of respondents/State.

3. With the consent of the parties, arguments heard for the purpose of final disposal.

4. The facts of the case in short are that the appellant is posted as Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Shahpura District-Dindori and has been transferred by the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 to Janpad Panchayat Palera, District-Tikamgarh. The order of transfer was assailed by the appellant in WP No.22640 of 2025 which was decided by order dated 27.06.2025 with a direction to the respondent department to consider the representation of the appellant and pass the reasoned and speaking order and interim relief was granted to the appellant to continue the present place of posting till the decision on his representation. By order dated 22.08.2025, the representation submitted by the appellant was rejected. The appellant challenged the original transfer order dated 17.06.2025 and order of rejection of representation dated 22.08.2025 in subject Writ Petition No.34978 of 2025 mainly on the ground that as per the transfer policy, the appellant could not be subjected to the transfer before completing 3 years in a scheduled area and the appellant is due for superannuation on 30.09.2026 therefore, no transfer order could be issued within a period of one year prior to the date of his superannuation.

5. Learned Single Judge after considering the arguments advanced by learned counsel for appellant dismissed the petition on the ground that in view of the administrative exigency, the transfer is permissible without completing the period of 3 years at the scheduled area and when the transfer order was issued, the appellant was not due for superannuation within a year.

6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the appellant is due for superannuation on 30.09.2026 and he is working at the present place of posting since 01.01.2024 and he has been subjected to frequent transfer. Without completing the minimum tenure of 3 years at the scheduled area as per Clause 14 and 17 of the transfer policy, the appellant could not be transferred when he is suffering from Acute Lacunar Infarct, Hypertension and Diabetes and under continuous treatment since 2021 in Nagpur and Dindori and transfer to Palera will interrupt in his regular treatment. His wife is also a government teacher and working at Janpad Panchayat Baihar District-Balaghat and the representation has been decided in a mechanical manner without considering the grounds mentioned by the appellant in the representation. Now, the period of less than one year is left to the proposed date of superannuation of the appellant and, therefore, the transfer order be set aside.

7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate opposed the appeal and supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submits that there is no bar in transferring government servant within a period of 3 years in case of administrative exigency. When the transfer order was passed, the appellant was not due for superannuation within a period of one year. The competent authority has considered the representation of the appellant and passed a spea