GEND SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern disposal of W.P. Nos. 9984/2013, 9990/2013, 10011/2013, 10012/2013, 10014/2013, 10015/ 2013, 10030/2013, 10033/2013, 10039/2013 and 10082/2013 as the question involved in all the petitions are indentical in nature and in all the petitions respondents are also one and the same and also prayer in all the petitions are for quashment of order dated 28 -05 -2013 whereby petitioners have been transferred from Forest Division to Working Plan Unit at different different places. In all the petitions it is alleged that the petitioners joined the services in Forest Department and were promoted as Range Officers and by the impugned order they have been transferred in Working Plan Unit.

(2.) UNDISPUTED facts in all the cases are that the respondent State took a policy decision in the year 2001 for posting of the Forest Ranger in Working Plan Unit. In the said policy, exemption was made available to the Forest Ranger in certain circumstances, however, the policy was amended in the year 2003, and thereafter the amended portion was withdrawn subsequently in the year 2005. Again new policy was made on 25 -3 -2011, superseding the earlier policies and the exemption from posting in the Working Plan was completely removed and withdrawn which was again reinserted by amendment dated 12.12.2011. Earlier also Forest Range Officers were transferred vide order dated 03.01.2013 in Working Plan Unit and the petitioners approached this Court by filing various writ petitions wherein the validity of the transfer order dated 03.01.2013 was challenged. This Court in W.P. No. 290/2013 passed a detailed order of which the relevant part is as under : -

(3.) IN compliance of order passed by this Court again the order was passed on 28.05.2013 by the respondents, whereby the petitioners who are working as Forest Rangers have been transferred in Working Plan Unit which is under challenge in the present petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order, whereby the petitioners have been transferred is illegal and not in compliance of the order passed by this Court. It is submitted that this Court directed the respondents to re -screen the cases of the petitioners regarding the posting in the Working Plan Unit but the respondents malafidely issued the impugned order without considering each of the cases individually and also did not take into co?sideration the physical fitness of each of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that petitioners are at the verge of retirement and at this stage if the petitioners are being transferred, then no useful purpose will serve. It is submitted that petitions be allowed and the impugned order, whereby the petitioners have been transferred in Working Plan Unit be quashed.