Rameshwar Dayal Dangi vs State

Rajendra Menon, Judge

Petitioner is working as a Beat Guard (Vanpal). Petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 13.7.2012 Annexure P/1 from one forest Beat to another in the same district of Tikamgarh. Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer mainly on the ground that he has only 9 months for his retirement and therefore, the transfer is contrary to transfer policy.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt. Advocate refutes the aforesaid and submits that an employee is granted protection if he is transferred before one year of his retirement out of District. It is stated that in this case as petitioner is being transferred within the district said ground is not available to the petitioner.

I see some force in the said contention of Shri Rajesh Tiwari.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, for the present without entering into the controversy on merits, petitioner is granted liberty to represent to the competent authority and it would be for the competent authority to consider and decide his representation with regard to quashing of transfer.

That apart, an application has been filed seeking amendment in the writ petition and the prayer made in the amendment application is with regard to challenge an order of suspension Annexure P/4. It is stated that petitioner is being suspended due to non compliance of the transfer order Annexure P/1.

For the present it is not appropriate for this Court to interfere into the order of suspension as against the order of suspension petitioner has a remedy of statutory appeal under Rule 9 of Discipline and Appeal Rules and thereafter, in case any grievance still subsists he is at liberty to challenge the aforesaid. In case an appeal is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of suspension within 7 days from today, the competent authority shall decide it within a period of 15 days thereof. With the aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.