IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JAI KUMAR PILLAI WRIT PETITION No. 6344 of 2026 ASHOK MEWADE Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH COLLECTOR DISTRICT RAJGARH (BIORA) AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Vivek Patwa - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Ranjeet Sen - Advocate for the respondent [R-3].

Shri Ayushyaman Choudhary – GA for the respondents/State.

Reserved on 18.02.2026 Post on 23.02.2026

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner assails the impugned order dated 11/02/2026 passed by Respondent No. 1, whereby the services of the petitioner have been transferred from Municipal Council Rajgarh (Biora) to Municipal Council Khilchipur, District Rajgarh. Furthermore, the petitioner also lays a challenge to the consequential relieving order dated 12/02/2026.

2. The facts, as averred in the petition and strictly confined to the record, reveal that the petitioner is a citizen of India, residing in Indore, Madhya Pradesh, and serving as a Moharir / Assistant Revenue Inspector. He was initially appointed as a daily wager with Respondent No. 3 (Municipal Council) on 01/04/2005. Subsequently, vide order dated 01/03/2018, the services of the petitioner were declared as viniyamit (regularized/classified) by Respondent No. 3.

3. The petitioner is currently holding the post of District President of the M.P. Municipal Corporation and Municipalities Employees Association, which is a registered association of daily wagers. It is stated that the said association had called a strike, and the petitioner, in his capacity as an office bearer, was canvassing the association's agenda regarding the non-grant of salary to the employees of the Municipal Council.

4. Following an alleged complaint regarding the work carried out by the petitioner as a leader of the registered association, Respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 11/02/2026 at precisely

10:54:57 AM, initiating a formal enquiry against the petitioner.

5. Barely 42 seconds after the issuance of the aforementioned enquiry order, the impugned transfer order dated 11/02/2026 was passed, transferring the petitioner's services from Municipal Council Rajgarh (Biora) to Municipal Council Khilchipur. In immediate compliance with the said order, the petitioner was relieved from his duties the very next day, on 12/02/2026. Aggrieved by these actions, the petitioner submitted a representation on 12/02/2026 through the association, and subsequently approached this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently advanced the following submissions: Firstly, it is contended that the impugned transfer order is entirely without jurisdiction. Respondent No. 1 (Collector) is neither the appointing authority nor the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, and therefore, possesses no legal authority to transfer a municipal employee, let alone a viniyamit daily wager, out of the Municipal Council where he is presently working.

7. Secondly, it is argued that the transfer is blatantly punitive in nature. The sequence of events—specifically, the issuance of the transfer order a mere 42 seconds after the initiation of an enquiry— clearly demonstrates a malicious intent to penalize the petitioner for his legitimate union activities and his role in the strike.

8. Thirdly, the petitioner contends that the transfer is in direct contravention of Clause 33 of the prevailing Transfer Policy dated 29/04/2025. Although the policy broadly applies to regular employees, it imposes a specific bar on the transfer of post holders of a registered association for a period of four years from the date of assuming the post, a protection the petitioner claims extends to his current tenure.

9. Per contra, the respondents have opposed the petition, defending the impugned action on the following grounds: The respondents submit that the transfer is neither punitive in