Dhanraj Patle Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1041773
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnAug-27-2013
AppellantDhanraj Patle
RespondentThe State of Madhya Pradesh
Excerpt:
w.p.no.13800/2013 (dhanraj patle..versus state of mp and others.27-08-2013 shri ajay sen, learned counsel for the petitioner. the default pointed out by the office is ignored. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief. the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as secretary, gram panchayat ghunadi to gram panchayat jaharmohgaon, janpad panchayat katangi, district balaghat. it is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the state government under m.p.panchayatraj avam gram swaraj adhiniyam, 1993 as the policy states that the panchayat secretary should be transferred to nearby gram panchayat or to the adjacent gram panchayat which has not been done in the present case and the petitioner has been transferred 25 k.ms.away from his present place of posting causing immense hardship to the petitioner in the mid academic session. it is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities (annexure p-3) on 27-7-2013 for redressal of his grievance but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till today. a division bench of this court in r.s.chaudhary versus state of m.p.and others.ilr [2007].mp 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation. in view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities for mitigation of his grievance which is pending decision, 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 respondent/authorities within a week of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping the transfer policy in mind, within a period of six weeks thereafter. the petitioner, if so advised, may also move an application for interim relief which shall be considered by the concerned authority at the earliest and till the orders on the application for interim relief, operation of the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance. however, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order. with the aforesaid directions, the petition filed by the petitioner stands disposed of. c.c.as per rules. mct (r.s.jha) judge
Judgment:

W.P.No.13800/2013 (Dhanraj Patle..versus State of MP and otheRs.27-08-2013 Shri Ajay Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The default pointed out by the office is ignored.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, on the question of admission and interim relief.

The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by order dated 12-7-2013 by which he has been transferred as Secretary, Gram Panchayat Ghunadi to Gram Panchayat Jaharmohgaon, Janpad Panchayat Katangi, District Balaghat.

It is alleged that the impugned transfer order has been passed in violation of the transfer policy formulated by the State Government under M.P.Panchayatraj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 as the policy states that the Panchayat Secretary should be transferred to nearby Gram Panchayat or to the adjacent Gram Panchayat which has not been done in the present case and the petitioner has been transferred 25 K.Ms.away from his present place of posting causing immense hardship to the petitioner in the mid academic session.

It is also submitted that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities (Annexure P-3) on 27-7-2013 for redressal of his grievance but no decision thereon has been taken by the authorities till today.

A Division Bench of this Court in R.S.Chaudhary versus State of M.P.and OtheRs.ILR [2007].MP 132.has already held that in case transfer is alleged to be contrary to the policy, the appropriate remedy of the petitioner is to approach the authority themselves by filing a representation.

In view of the aforesaid, as the petitioner has already filed a representation before the respondent/authorities for mitigation of his grievance which is pending decision, 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 respondent/authorities within a week of obtaining the same, the concerned authority shall consider and decide the aforesaid representation of the petitioner in accordance with law, keeping the transfer policy in mind, within a period of six weeks thereafter.

The petitioner, if so advised, may also move an application for interim relief which shall be considered by the concerned authority at the earliest and till the orders on the application for interim relief, operation of the impugned order shall be kept in abeyance.

However, it is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and therefore the authority would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter either accept or reject the representation by passing a reasoned order.

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

C.C.as per rules.

mct (R.S.Jha) Judge