VINAYDEEP KHALKHO Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved with the order of transfer dtd. 5/10/2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 transferring the petitioner from Anuppur to Mandla, he made a representation to the authority but that representation has been decided by the authority vide order dtd. 27/1/2023 (Annexure P/6) rejecting the same without assigning any reason thereof, therefore petitioner has filed this petition s.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner raised personal difficulty in his representation saying that his wife is also a government employee and at present she is working nearby a place of posting of the petitioner and after transfer of the petitioner from Anuppur to Mandla, the distance between the place of posting of wife and the applicant would be more than 250 Kms. Counsel submits that petitioner is having two children and one children is facing some heart problem and getting treatment in Gudgaon (Haryana) and as such it is difficult for the petitioner to comply the order of transfer. He submits that when the representation made by the petitioner was very exhaustive showing personal difficulties and mentioning that nobody has been brought in his place, the authority was under obligation to assign reason for rejecting the request made by the petitioner, but the same has not been done and therefore the order is illegal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents/State submits that this petition can be disposed of directing authority to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh by assigning reason.