Kailashchand Sisodiya vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

M.C. Garg, J.—This order shall dispose of three writ appeals being W.A. No. 677/2013, W.A. No. 678/2013 and W.A. No. 679/2013 as similar controversy is involved in all these appeals. The appellants have come up in this writ appeal aggrieved by the order dated 18/06/2013 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. No. 6846/2013(s) whereby dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioners. Vide the impugned judgment the following order has been passed:-

18/06/2013

Petitioner by Mr. Manoj Manav, Advocate.

Respondents by Mrs. Mukesh Parwal, Govt. Advocate.

With the consent matter is heard finally.

ORDER

The prayer in this petition is for quashment of the orders dated 30/04/2013 and 03/06/2013.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is posted as Panchayat Coordinator Officer. It is submitted that petitioner was transferred from Ujjain to Shajapur. It is submitted that representation submitted by the petitioner has not been considered in proper prospective. It is submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted in Ujjain in the year 1997 while in fact petitioner is posted in the year 2001. It is submitted that senior officers were posted at Ujjain prior to the petitioner but they have not been transferred till so far. It is submitted that petition be allowed and impugned order be quashed as the information furnished was not correct.

From perusal of record, it appears that undisputedly petitioner is posted at Ujjain since 2001. Petitioner has completed more that 13 years at one place and by the impugned order more than 38 employees have been transferred, petitioner is at serial no. 26. If grievance of the petitioner is that the officer who are senior and posted at Ujjain prior to the date of posting of petitioner, then petitioner shall be at liberty to inform the names of those officers who were posted earlier to the petitioner at Ujjain to the Competent Authority. However, petitioner is directed to comply with the order forthwith.

With the aforesaid observations, petition stands disposed of.

In this writ appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the transfer were made as per the transfer policy. There is no violation of the transfer policy. The transfers are based upon administrative exigencies because they were excess employees and as such their salary could not be drawn being in excess. As against 11 posts, 23 persons were working on the said posts in the Janpad Panchayat, Ujjain. The appellants have been for a period of 12 years at the place they were posted earlier.

In view of the aforesaid, we find no infirmity in the order of transfer.

Dismissed. C.C.as per rules.