High CourtsDivision Bench

Indu Singh vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 29 August 2020 · Citation: (2020) 08 MP CK 0289

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sanjay Yadav, J · B. K. Shrivastava, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 — Section 2(1)
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 520 Of2020
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 281 words

Sanjay Yadav, J

1.

This intra-court appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, is directed against an order dated 13.03.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.6100/2020.

2.

In the Writ Petition, the challenge was to an order dated 13.02.2020; whereby the petitioner, a Primary Teacher, was transferred from EGSPS Chilkhi Tola Block Jaisingh Nagar to UEGS Kakarhai Tola Kotma, Block Sohagpur within District Shahdol. The direction was also sought to post her on the place of her choice as indicated in her representation dated 29.02.2020. The petitioner, however, confined her relief to the extent of deciding the representation. Learned Single Judge on a finding that the petitioner had not reported to the place of transfer, declined to issue any direction in view of the decision in Gujarat Electricity Board vs Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989) 2 SCC 602 and a Division Bench judgment of this High Court in Mridul Kumar Sharma vs State of M.P. 2015(4) MPLJ 480, wherein it is held that whenever a public servant is transferred and the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled, the concerned public servant must carry out the transfer and not carrying out the same will entail disciplinary action.

3.

In the case at hand, since the petitioner gave up her challenge to the validity of the order dated 13.02.2020 and confined her relief for direction to decide the representation, learned Single Judge was justified in declining the same as the petitioner had not reported at reported at her transferred place.

4.

As no illegality is perceived with the impugned order, we decline the interference.

5.

Consequently, appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.