Brajendra Singh Parmar vs State Of MP

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been  filed  against  the  order  dated  09/09/2020  passed  by  the respondent No.1, by which the petitioner has been transferred from District Jail, Morena to District Jail Vidisha.

It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Guard in the Jail Department and is posted in District Jail, Morena. In the month of December, 2019 he had undergone an open-heart surgery. It is the case of the petitioner that he is going to retire in the month of July, 2021 i.e. only 10 months have left for his retirement. It is further submitted that the daughter of the petitioner is a student of Graduation. It is the case of the petitioner that since the petitioner has undergone major surgery in the month of December, 2019, therefore, the movement of the petitioner from District Jail, Morena to District Jail, Vidisha, in the present pandemic situation, would be detrimental to his health.

Per contra, the petition is opposed by the counsel for the State. It is submitted that transfer is an exigency of service and, therefore, nobody can claim that he should be posted at a particular place.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

It is the case of the petitioner that on 17/12/2019, he had undergone an open-heart surgery and he is due to retire in the month of July, 2021 and only 10 months have left. Further, it is the case of the petitioner that his daughter is a student of Graduation. The petitioner has also filed a representation against his transfer order which was sent to the respondent No.2 by registered letter dated 19/09/2020.

This petition has been filed mainly on the ground of personal difficulties. Further, as per Clause 11.8 of the Transfer Policy, "generally" an employee should not be transferred if he is due to retire within the period of one year. The transfer policy is not enforceable by law, but looking to the fact that the petitioner has undergone a major surgery on 17/12/2019, it is directed that the respondents shall consider the representation of the petitioner sympathetically.

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, but in the light of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering the fact that as the petitioner has undergone a major surgery in the month of December, 2019 itself, and out of district movement during the present pandemic situation may not be conducive for his health, coupled with the fact that he is due to retire within the period of 10 months' from today, it is directed that the effect and operation of the order dated 09/09/2020 qua the petitioner, shall remain stayed till the representation is decided.

With aforesaid observations, this petition is finally disposed of.