Seetaram Rathore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 04/06/2020 passed by the respondent No.1, by which the petitioner has been transferred from Nagar Parishad Banmor, District Morena to Nagar Parishad Mau, District Bhind.

It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is an Assistant Revenue Inspector and by order dated 12/09/2018, he was transferred from Nagar Parishad Bilaua to Nagar Parishad Banmor and without there being any administrative exigency, he has been transferred to Nagar Parishad Mau, District Bhind. It is further submitted that during this Covid-19 pandemic situation, it is very difficult for the petitioner to shift to Nagar Parishad Mau, District Bhind alongwith his family and paraphernalia, therefore, the petitioner should not have been transferred. It is further submitted that there is no  administrative exigency and the reasons for the same have not been disclosed.

Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the State that transfer of the petitioner has been passed in administrative exigency.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The first contention of the petitioner is that no reason has been assigned to point out the administrative exigency in transferring the petitioner. This Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot act as an appellate authority. This Court cannot look into the sufficiency /insufficiency of the reasons for transferring an employee on administrative exigency. There are no allegations of mala fide.

It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the Covid-19 pandemic situation, it is difficult for the petitioner to execute the transfer order dated 04/06/2020. It is further submitted that nobody has been posted in place of the petitioner and therefore, the transfer order is bad.

Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. It is true that during this tough time of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner may not get an accommodation very easily. It may also be very difficult for him to shift to his transferred place alongwith his family and paraphernalia. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted two months' time to execute the transfer order and till then he may be permitted to continue at the present place of posting provided no other person is posted in place of the petitioner.

The petitioner is further granted liberty to make a representation against his transfer order. This Court is conscious of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mridul Kumar Sharma vs. State of M.P., reported in ILR (2015) MP 2556 in which it has been held that representation can be directed to be decided only after the transfer order is executed but in view of the present unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic situation, coupled with the fact that this Court has granted liberty to the petitioner to execute the transfer order within a period of two months from today, it is directed that in case, if the petitioner makes a representation against his transfer order, then the same shall be decided by the authorities in accordance with law. The interim protection granted to the petitioner should not be construed as a direction to cancel the transfer order and the respondents shall decide the representation strictly in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observation, this petition is finally disposed of.