Devesh Kumar Khatarkar vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 27/03/2020 passed by respondent No.2, by which the petitioner has been transferred to the office of Assistant Manager Distribution Center Bahadurpur, District Ashoknagar, which is 50 k.m. away from the present place of posting of the petitioner.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been transferred during the period of lockdown and vehicles are not plying and no one can travel from one place to another place and the respondents themselves have cancelled some of the transfer orders. The young daughter of the petitioner is studying at Ishagarh and the petitioner has made a representation for cancellation of his transfer order, which is still pending.

At the outset, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the respondents may be directed to decide the representation made by the petitioner.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the entire writ petition it is no-where mentioned as to whether the petitioner has joined at his transferred place or not? Now a limited lockdown is in operation and any person can move within the green zones without any pass. Therefore, now it is incorrect to say that the movement of person is restricted. However, in view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and in the light of the judgment passed by Division Bench of this court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556, It is directed that in case, if the petitioner joins at his transferred place (if not already joined), then his representation shall be considered by the respondents.

The direction to decide the representation should not be construed as a direction to cancel his transfer and it shall be the prerogative of the authority to decide the representation in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, the petition is finally disposed of.