Tikaram Pachore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

Heard on the question of admission.

In this writ appeal under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya(Khand Nyaypith Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 order dated 12.03.2024, passed in W.P. No.6663/2024 has been challenged whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant vide order dated 13.12.2023 being an Assistant Engineer was posted in Head Office Narmada Valley Development Authority(for brevity "NDVA") Bhopal thereafter, vide order dated 03.01.2024, he was transferred from NVDA Bhopal to the Office of Deputy Director, Rehabilitation NVDA, Bhopal. Vide order dated 20.02.2024, he was given additional charge of NVDA Mandleshwar which was earlier held by one Mahesh Kumar Shivhare - respondent No.7. The respondent No.7 challenged the said order by way of W.P. No.5003 of 2023, which was not been entertained, therefore, the respondent No.7 withdrew the same on 05.03.2024.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the respondent No.7 withdrew the writ petition, the charge has been again handed over to the respondent No.7 - Mahesh Kumar Shivhare vide order dated 11.03.2024. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the learned Single Judge challenging the same.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the additional charge is not a right and its a pure discretion of the department to handover the additional charge to any suitable officer.

Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the prayer and submitted that the appellant is not vested with the fundamental right to claim the additional charge of Executive Engineer. He further submitted that this matter with regard to grant of additional charge is no more res-integra The five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of The State of Assam & Anr. Vs. Ajit Kumar Sharma & Ors.[AIR 1965 SC 1196, has held that that the Executive instructions confer no right of any kind and the same cannot be a reason for the High Court to issue mandamus against the State Government. He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs. S.M. Sharma & Anr. (1993) SCC Suppl. 3252 wherein it is held that no one has right to ask or stick to a current duty charge. The impugned order has not caused any financial loss or prejudice of any kind to the appellant. No cause or action whatsoever is there to invoke the writ Jurisdiction of the High Court.

In view of the aforesaid, in our considered opinion, no legal, vested, statutory or constitutional right of the appellant has been infringed by the respondents. The learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition.

The appeal being bereft of merit and substance is hereby dismissed at the admission stage itself.