MRIDUL KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties for admission.

(2.) The argument before us is that the learned Single Judge has committed error in not giving the same benefit as given by the coordinate Bench (another Single Judge) on the same day. Reliance is placed on the order dated 4.8.2015 passed in W.P. No.12705/2015, wherein the coordinate Bench observed that till the representation of the writ petitioner in that case was decided by the appropriate Authority, the transfer order shall remain stayed. Indeed, that order was passed inspite of rejecting the relief claimed in the said writ petition questioning the transfer order.

(3.) Notably, both the orders are passed by the Single Bench of this Court and, therefore, cannot be cited as binding precedent in this intra Court appeal before the Division Bench. More so, the legal position is no more res integra. The Supreme Court has consistently observed that the representation filed by the employee does not create any right in his favour to remain at the same place from where he has been transferred, until the representation is decided. The fact that representation is pending will be of no avail to the employee concerned. He must first join at the transferred place, even if he has to pursue remedy of representation. Whether the concerned employee should be permitted to remain at the same place until his representation is decided, is also the prerogative of the appropriate Authority. It is not for the Court to sit over that subjective satisfaction or dictate to the concerned Authority in that behalf, being purely administrative matter. Understood thus, the fact that coordinate Bench (Single Bench) had given relief to another writ petitioner on the same day cannot be the basis to grant same relief to this appellant.