Manas Piyush Richhariya vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal u/s 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 has been filed calling in question tenability of an order dated 30th October, 2013 passed by the Writ Court in W.P. No. 19290/13.

Appellant herein is working as a Secretary in the Gram Panchayat Bamhori Khas, Tahsil Jatara, Distt. Tikamgarh. Initially, he was in attachment in the office of Janpad Panchayat Jatara. Thereafter, vide order dated 21.09.13, petitioner was transferred to Gram Panchayat Baranakhas and respondent no. 6 was transferred to Satguwan.

It is the case of the appellant that he joined at Baranakhas on 26.09.13 and was authorized to work as a Panchayat Secretary but all of a sudden respondent no. 2 passed an order on 4.10.13 and cancelled the order of transfer. It is said that only to grant adjustment to respondent no. 6, the transfer order was cancelled and challenging the same, the writ petition has been filed. In the writ petition, it was specifically stated that during the period of last more than three years, petitioner has been shifted from one place to another on more than 4 occasions. The Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition in the admission stage itself without notice to the respondents. The learned Writ Court observed that the grounds raised in the writ petition does not make out a case for interference as the grounds of malafides are not made out.

Shri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the case of frequent transfer is made out, in as much as, the transfer order has been issued directing the appellant to join as Secretary of the Gram Panchayat at Barana Khas. After he joined on the said post on 27.09.13, the transfer order was cancelled. The learned Writ Court should have interfered into the matter on the grounds of frequent transfer and to grant accommodation to respondent no. 6.

Shri Rahul Jain, learned Govt. Adv. for the State submits that merely because transfer of respondent no. 6 is not made on the grounds of malafides and the material available on record indicates that no case is made out for interference.

Shri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel argued that respondent no. 6 has never raised any objection and as the administrative decision is taken for cancelling the transfer, no interference be made.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is clear that petitioner has been frequently transferred and the impugned order cancelling the transfer is only to grant accommodation to respondent no. 6. There is nothing available on record to show as to how malafides have been attributed and what are the grounds on the basis of which malafides can be established. The fact remains that as petitioner has been frequently transferred only to grant accommodation to respondent no. 6 and as respondents have not filed any reply, it is thought appropriate to remand the matter back to respondent no. 2 to take a decision with regard to the grievance of the petitioner.

Accordingly, it is directed that on the appellant''s filing a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2 along with the relevant documents, respondent no. 2 shall look into the grievance and pass appropriate orders on the representation of the appellant within a period of 30 days of its presentation.

Till the decision is not taken by the respondent no. 2, status quo in the matter of working and posting of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 shall be maintained.

With the aforesaid, the appeal stands disposed of.

C.C. as per rules.