MANJULATA YADAV Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Smt. Manjulata Yadav is present in person. The petitioner has challenged the transfer order, Annexure P -1, whereby she is transferred from Bhitarwar, Gwalior to Jabalpur in administrative exigency. The petitioner submits that her husband is presently posted at Mathura and small kids of 5 and 3 years of age respectively are residing with her and her mother. The petitioner had preferred a representation on 7.6.2012 praying for her transfer to District Headquarter Gwalior from Bhitarwar so that she can look after her small kids and aged and ailing mother. The petitioner submits that by Annexures P -3 and P -4 the petitioner was transferred at different places and, therefore, it amounts to frequent transfer.

(2.) I have heard the petitioner at length. So far alleged ground of frequent transfer is concerned a bare perusal of Annexures P -3 and P -4 shows that the petitioner was posted within Gwalior District. These are not transfer orders and, therefore, the said orders cannot be a ground to treat it to be frequent transfer. The Apex Court in B. Varadha Rao Vs. State of Karnataka and others reported in : (1986) 4 SCC 131, held that protection from frequent transfer is provided to low paid class -3 and class -4 employees. Relevant portion of it reads as under: -

(3.) IN the present case, earlier local postings of the petitioner do not fall within the ambit of "frequent transfer" nor the petitioner is a low paid class -3 or class -4 employee. Thus, the said principle cannot be pressed into service qua the present petitioner.