SURESH KUMAR SHARMA Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, AMBAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall govern disposal or Misc. Petition No. 1240 of 1992 (Ram Kumar Tripathi v. Municipal Council, Alamaur and others); Misc. Petition No. 1242 of 1992 (Ramroop Sakhawar v. Municipal Council, Ambah and others); Misc. Petition No. 1243 or 1992 (Dataram Yadav v. Municipal Council, Mow and others); Misc. Petition No. 1244 or 1992 (Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi v. Municipal Council, Daboh and others) and Misc. Petition No. 1892 of 1992 (Umeshk Chandra Soni v. Director of Urban Administration, Bhopal and another) as well.

(2.) THE six petitioners, by their separate petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged their transfer order passed by the Director of Urban Administration, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, on 25.7.1992. That is a common order and by that, as many as employees of various Municipal Councils in the State of Madhya Pradesh were transferred from different places to different places in the State. Details, relevant for disposal of the petitions in hand are as tabulated below: - ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...

(3.) MUNICIPAL Councils and the State, by their separate returns in each of the petitions, contested the petitions by contending therein that under section 94 (7) of the Act, the State Government is empowered to transfer any officer or servant of a Council, mentioned in sub -sections (1) and (2) of section 94 whose total emoluments exceed Rs.100/ - to any other Concil. The State Government, vide Notification, published in the M.P. Government Gazette, dated 22.11.1977, delegated its powers exercisable by it under sections 94 (4) and 94 (7) of the Act to the Director of Urban Administration (Annexure R/1). Therefore, the order of transfer, passed by the Director, Urban Administration, is not without jurisdiction. The transfer of the employees is in exigencies of administration and in public interest. Consequent upon the order of transfer of the petitioners from one Municipal Council to another, the seniority of the petitioners and the resultant promotion on that basis is not affected in any manner. Therefore the orders of transfer are not in violation of any statutory provision nor are malafide.