Gyanendra Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

R.S. Jha, J.—Heard Shri Sushil Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission and interim relief. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 15-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bargi, Tahsil and District Jabalpur to Gram Panchayat Mangela, Panagar.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfers within eleven months as he was earlier transferred by order dated 3-7-2012 and after two months i.e. on 29-9-2012 he was again transferred and now the impugned order has been passed transferring the petitioner as above which is contrary to the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P. Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993. It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities (Annexure P-5) on 20-7-2013 for redressal of his grievance but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till today.

A Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Chaudhary vs. State of M.P. and Others, ILR [2007] MP 1329 has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation.

In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities for mitigation of his grievance which is pending decision, without entering into the merits of the case the petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the effect that in case the petitioner furnishes a copy of the order passed today alongwith a copy of the petition to the concerned authority within a week of obtaining the same, the authority shall consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping the transfer policy in mind, within a period of six weeks thereafter. The petitioner, if so advised, may also move an application for interim relief which shall be considered by the concerned authority at the earliest.

However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order.

With the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. C.C. as per rules.