M L VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 1-2-2012 (Annexure - P/6) passed by the respondent No.1 by which the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Dondi, District Balod to the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ramanujgani, District Balrampur.

(2.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned transfer order suffers from malaise of frequent transfers because by order dated 30-6-2009 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioner has been transferred from the post of Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Duldula, District Jashpur to the post of Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Development, Koriya. Thereafter, by order dated 30-8-2011 (Annexure - P/2) from Baikunthpur to Dondi, District Balod and afterwards within a period of four months by the impugned order dated 1-2-2012 the petitioner has again been transferred from Dondi to Ramanujganj only to accommodate respondent No.2. LEARNED counsel further submits that as per the transfer policy no employee can be transferred before completion of 2+ years service at a particular place unless and until there is any compliant of grievous or serious nature. The impugned order has been passed without there being any administrative exigency. The children of the petitioner are prosecuting their studies at Bhilai, Durg and on account of execution of the impugned transfer order, during the mid session, the children of the petitioner shall suffer irreparably. To buttress his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision rendered by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Rajesh Kumar Shukla v. State of MP and Others1.

(3.) THE contention of Shri Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that under the transfer policy dated 13-6-2011 (Annexure - P/7) no transfer of an employee can be made, if he has not spent 2+ years at a particular place. THE said contention is noticed to be rejected on the ground that the period of 2+ is not mandatory, but in normal course, if no other exigency is there, the transfer of an employee may not be made, who has not completed 2+ years at a particular place.