Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
The petition is allowed
Judgment
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH) VALLABH BHAVAN PRINCIPAL THR. STATE OF CHHATISGARH G.A.D. GOVT. OF CHHATISGARH (CHHATTISGARH) SECRETARY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRINCIPAL SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVT. OF M.P. VALLABH BHAWAN (MADHYA PRADESH) SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRINCIPAL SCHOOL EDUCATION GOVT. OF CHHATISGARH RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) SECRETARY, SPECIAL OF PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF CHHATISGARH (CHHATTISGARH) DEPARTMENT DISTT. EDUCATION OFFICER DATAI DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH) SANKUL SECONDARY PRADESH) PRINCIPAL GOVT. OF HIGHER SHCOOL KHAIRIASAN (MADHYA
2 SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PRINCIPAL PANCHAYAT AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF M.P (MADHYA PRADESH) CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILA PANCHAYAT DATIA (MADHYA PRADESH) UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCE AND PENSION, GOVT. OF INDIA SOUTH BLOCK NEW DELHI (DELHI)
(BY SHRI SHRI JITESH SHARMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE AND SHRI PRAVEEN NEWASKAR - DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR RESPONDENT NO.10) .....RESPONDENTS This petition coming on for hearing this day, th e court passed the following: ORDER This is second visit of the petitioner to this Court for the same relief. The admitted facts between the parties are the petitioner prayed for allocation/transfer to State of C.G. Initially, the State of M.P. and State of C.G. have granted their no objection. Despite this, the order was not issued by administrative department of State of M.P. for transfer/relieving of the petitioner for the State of C.G. At this stage, WP. No.6732/2012 was filed by the petitioner. This petition was disposed of on 03-10-2012 by directing the Government of M.P. to look into the matter and if the order of transfer of the petitioner is required to be issued, necessary orders may be issued within two months.
In turn, no compliance was done by holding that the petitioner is an employee of local body/Panchayat and for their interstate transfer no policy has been made. The petitioner being a Shiksha Karmi is not entitled to be relieved/transferred. Shri Devesh Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner criticized the said 3 order by contending that the petitioner is subjected to step motherly treatment. For petitioner it is argued that he being a shiksha karmi cannot be transferred/relieved whereas similarly situated person Smt. Neelkusum Bada, Shiksha Karmi Grade 2 was transferred from Tikamgrah to District Jashpur (C.G.) and she was relieved by State of M.P. Attention of this Court is also drawn on the recent orders dated 16-08-2016 (Annexure P/13 and P/14 filed with the rejoinder). It is submitted that Smt. Madhyamika Painkara, who is transferred and relieved for State of C.G. was also working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III. Thus, it is canvassed that the petitioner is subjected to hostile discrimination.
Shri Ajay Ojha, learned counsel for the State of C.G. submitted that Stateof C.G. has no objection, if the petitioner is transferred and relieved by State of M.P. In that case, she will be given appropriate posting in State of C.G. Shri Jitesh Sharma, learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order and placed reliance on the return. It is urged that the petitioner is an employee of local body and not an employee of Govt. of M.P. The allocation under the Act of 2000 was required to be done amongst the State Cadre Employees. The petitioner is not one such employee and, therefore, she cannot be transferred/relieved for State of C.G. It is further submitted that State initially gave its consent but the said consent is not binding as per principles of estopple. If the estopple is claimed against the policy, it has no relevance at all. No other point is pressed by the parties. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.
Operative part
The State Government has not filed any provision/policy to show that the petitioner's transfer/relieving is impermissible. They have merely referred about the policy. The return is also silent as to how Smt. Neelkusum Bada was 4 transferred and relieved for State of C.G. when she was also holding the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade 2. The documents (Annexure P/13 & P/14) show that the respondents have recently relieved the persons, who were working in the local body for the State of C.G. Thus, I find substance in the arguments of petitioner that he has been singled out whereas similarly situated persons were transferred and relieved for the State of C.G. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the State of M.P. is directed to transfer and relieve the petitioner for State of C.G within 45 days from the date of communication of this order. In turn, the State of C.G., as consented, shall accept the joining and provide appropriate posting to the petitioner. This order passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case shall not be treated as precedent. The petition is allowed. No cost. NEETU SHASHANK 18:44:17 +05'30' (MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.