Durukshay Panth Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Durukshay Panth vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Sep 13, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1052441

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1052441
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Sep 13, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Durukshay Panth

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

.....decided on 20.4.2010, petitioner cannot be transferred, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer. shri sanjeev kumar singh, learned counsel for the state, points out that petitioner is a daily wage employee having been appointed at a particular place and for a particular work and not as the work in the appointed place is not available, he is being deputed to work in some other place where work is available. accordingly, learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference be not made. having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that petitioner is a daily wage employee and according to the law laid down in the case of ashok tiwari (supra).petitioner cannot be transferred. however, at the same time if the petitioner is a daily wage employee and the work for which the petitioner was appointed is not available in the said place where he was initially appointed, respondents are free to give an option to the 2 petitioner either to go on the transferred place or liberty is granted to the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner as per law, in case work is not available at the place where he is posted. accordingly, respondents are directed to give an option to the petitioner to opt for going to the transferred place, else liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in the matter of such daily wage employees, who do not want to go on transfer, and take consequential action as per law. with the aforesaid, for the present directing the respondents not to implement the order of transfer, this petition is disposed of. certified copy as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge aks/-

Full Judgment

13.09.2012.

Shri Anil Tiwari for the petitioner.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Panel Lawyer, for the State on advance notice.

Petitioner is working as daily wage employee and it is his grievance that vide order-dated 8.8.2012, he has been transferred from one place to another.

Interalia contending that in view of the Full Bench judgment in the case of Ashok Tiwari versus M.P.Text Book Corporation and Another, Writ Petition No.1963/2003, decided on 20.4.2010, petitioner cannot be transferred, this writ petition has been filed challenging the order of transfer.

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the State, points out that petitioner is a daily wage employee having been appointed at a particular place and for a particular work and not as the work in the appointed place is not available, he is being deputed to work in some other place where work is available.

Accordingly, learned counsel submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, interference be not made.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on a perusal of the records, it is seen that petitioner is a daily wage employee and according to the law laid down in the case of Ashok Tiwari (supra).petitioner cannot be transferred.

However, at the same time if the petitioner is a daily wage employee and the work for which the petitioner was appointed is not available in the said place where he was initially appointed, respondents are free to give an option to the 2 petitioner either to go on the transferred place or liberty is granted to the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner as per law, in case work is not available at the place where he is posted.

Accordingly, respondents are directed to give an option to the petitioner to opt for going to the transferred place, else liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law in the matter of such daily wage employees, who do not want to go on transfer, and take consequential action as per law.

With the aforesaid, for the present directing the respondents not to implement the order of transfer, this petition is disposed of.

Certified copy as per rules.

(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Aks/-

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2012 Same Parties Durukshay Panth vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education