Vishwanath Singh Raghuvanshi vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

The singular ground raised by Shri D.S. Raghuvanshi against the transfer order is that petitioner is District Secretary of M.P. Patwari Sangh, which is clear from Annexure-P/3 and therefore, as per immunity clause i.e. 9.23 of the transfer policy, he should not have been transferred. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the clause 9.23 was inserted with a view to ensure that during the stipulated term, the Office Bearer does not loose his Office Bearer status and can continue his legitimate association activity. If petitioner is transferred out of the district, it will deprive him the Office Bearer status and in that case, 9.23 will be attracted. In the present case, the petitioner is a District Level Office Bearer transferred within the district. In the considered opinion of this Court, this will neither deprive him from the Office Bearer status nor legitimate association activities. This Court in W.P. No. 8246/2011 has affirmed the similar transfer order wherein the Patwaries were transferred out of their home tehsil as a matter of principle. The said order passed by this Court has got a stamp of approval from the Division Bench in W.A.No. 692/2011 and ultimately by Supreme Court.

Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to interfere in this matter. However, this will not preclude the petitioner to pursue his departmental representation mentioning therein other personal grounds. Petition stands disposed of.