CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench

Sanjay Singh vs State of M.P. and Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 5 August 2013 · Citation: (2013) 08 MP CK 0310

HON’BLE JUDGES
Krishn Kumar Lahoti, Acting C.J. · Subhash Kakade, J
CASE NUMBER
Writ Appeal No. 669 of 2013
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

8 paragraphs · 383 words
1.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 3-6-2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 9895/2013 by which a writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 5 was finally disposed of with the directions to the respondents No. 1 and 2 to decide the representation of the respondent No. 5 within an appropriate period and till then his transfer order, Annexure-P/1, dated 17-5-2013, was stayed. This appeal has been filed on the following grounds:

1.

The respondent No. 5 was made In-charge, Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Kothi, District Satna, vide order Annexure-P/3, dated 7-6-2011 but his substantive post is of Revenue Inspector in Municipal services.

2.

The appellant has been promoted and appointed as Chief Municipal Officer of C-Group Municipalities, vide Annexure-P/1, dated 17-5-2013 and has been posted as Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Kothi. As the appellant has been posted as full-fledged Chief Municipal Officer, the respondent No. 5 is not entitled to continue as In-charge. So, staying operation of the order Annexure-P/1, dated 17-5-2013, is causing serious hardships to the appellant.

2.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that that the representation of the respondent No. 5 is still pending with the respondents No. 1 and 2 undecided. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Govt. Advocate who has received instructions from the respondents No. 1 and 2 submits that the representation of the respondent No. 5 shall be decided within a period of 30 days from today.

3.

Shri Atul Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that he has received instructions from the respondent No. 5 that he is not willing now to continue at the Municipal Council, Kothi, because the appellant is junior to him and he is not wiling to work under him. Now he is ready to join at Umaria, subject to decision of his representation. However, at Umariya he may be permitted to work on his substantive post of Revenue Inspector.

4.

From a perusal of Annexure-P/1, dated 17-5-2013, we find that after the posting of the appellant at the Municipal Council Panchayat, Kothi, the respondent No. 5 has been posted to the substantive post of Revenue Inspector at Municipal Council, Umaria.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, we finally dispose of this writ appeal with the following directions:

No order as to costs.