K.S. Raghuwanshi vs State of M.P. and Others

This appeal is directed against an order dated 28/06/2013, by which, a writ petition preferred by the appellant was finally disposed of. For the ready reference, we quote the entire order, which reads thus:

The petitioner, who is presently posted at Udaipura and holding the charge of Executive Engineer, Raisen, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order dated 17/06/2013 by which he has been transferred to Vidisha.

It is alleged that the impugned order of transfer amounts to frequent transfer and, therefore, is violative of the transfer policy of the State Government.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed a representation (Annexure P-1) before the competent authority against the said order on 17/06/2013 but no decision thereon has been taken by the authority till date.

In view of the aforesaid, 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 fifteen days of obtaining the same, the authority shall consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law preferably within a period of three months thereafter. The petitioner may also file an application before the concerned authority in accordance with the policy of the State Government seeking interim order of stay, if so advised.

With the aforesaid directions the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of.

This appeal has been filed mainly on the ground that the writ Court ought to have quashed the transfer order Annexure P/6, by which, the appellant was transferred from Raisen to Vidisha on a vacant post of Assistant Engineer.

It is submitted that the appellant has already been considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee for his promotion on the post of Executive Engineer, but because of the imposition of model code of conduct by the Election Commission, no order has been issued. It is also submitted that as per the decision of the respondent No. 1, the appellant has been proposed to be posted only at Raisen, as Executive Engineer.

Shri Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 submitted that the respondent No. 5 was transferred in place of appellant at Raisen and he had already been relieved and joined at Raisen, but because of the ad-interim writ issued by this Court, he is unable to discharge his duties. It is also submitted that since more than three months, the salary has not been disbursed because of the aforesaid position. It is submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.

Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submitted that the representation of the appellant Annexure P/7 dated 17/06/2013 is pending before the respondent No. 1 and in case this representation is decided, the position will be cleared. It is also submitted by him that the transfer order Annexure P/6 was issued on the representation of the appellant himself, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure R/5-1 along with the reply.

The aforesaid position is disputed by Shri Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant, who submitted that the transfer representation Annexure R/5-1 was filed long back on 07/06/2012, when the appellant was posted as Assistant Engineer at Basoda, District Vidisha. In the aforesaid representation, the appellant had sought adjustment at Basoda, District Vidisha itself and in case it was not possible, then to post him at Raisen, Beena, Sagar, Bhopal or Sihore. It is submitted that after representation Annexure R/5-1, the appellant was transferred to Raisen, but now on the basis of the same representation, the appellant has been re-transferred to Vidisha, while after transfer to Raisen, no representation was filed by the appellant.

Facts of the present case are peculiar. The appellant who was earlier posted as Assistant Engineer was transferred in continuation to representation Annexure R/5-1 dated 07/06/2012 to Udaipura, District Raisen and was assigned duty of Incharge Executive Engineer vide order Annexure P/4 dated 26/09/2012. As on date, the appellant is working as Incharge Executive Engineer, Raisen and his representation Annexure P/7 is pending before the respondent No. 1, we find it appropriate to disposed of this writ appeal finally with the following directions:-

(i) The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the representation, Annexure P/7 dated 17/06/2013 of the appellant within a period of one week from the date of communication of this order. After deciding the representation, the respondent No. 1 shall issue consequential orders forthwith, which shall be complied with by the appellant and respondent No. 5 in accordance with law.

(ii) Till decision on the representation by the respondent No. 1, ad-interim writ issued by this Court dated 08/07/2013, shall continue, which shall be subject to final decision of the respondent No. 1, on the representation.

(iii) It shall be the responsibility of the appellant and learned Government Advocate for the State to communicate this order forthwith to respondent No. 1.

A typed copy of the order be supplied to Shri Swapnil Ganguli, learned Government Advocate and certified copy as per rules to the parties.

No order as to costs.