SUNITA DEODI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of order dtd. 9/6/2025 (Annexure P-1) and order dtd. 1/8/2025 (Annexure P10), passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that this is second visit of the petitioner to this Court. Earlier also the petitioner had filed a petition vide W.P. No. 20426 of 2025 assailing transfer order dtd. 9/6/2025 (Annexure P-1). The said writ petition was dismissed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 19/6/2025 (Annexure P-7). Assailing the order dtd. 19/6/2025, the petitioner preferred a writ appeal vide W.A. No. 1741 of 2025, which was disposed of by Division Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 27/6/2025 (Annexure P-8) and while disposing of the said appeal, the Division Bench granted liberty to the petitioner to submit supplementary representation and directed the respondents therein to take decision on previous representation dtd. 9/6/2025 as well as supplementary representation and the till the decision on the representations, interim protection was also granted to the petitioner. The Division Bench in Para 5 observed that the Court has neither considered nor commented on the merits or the contentions of the either party and the competent Authority was left to decide the representation without being influenced by anything stated in the order on merits. The counsel for the petitioner contends that subsequently the representation of the petitioner has been turned down vide order dtd. 30/6/2025 (Annexure P-9).

(3.) It is contended that the employees who are approaching the age of superannuation should not be subjected to transfer in view of the provision of M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and while dealing with this aspect, the transfer order was quashed by Indore Bench of this Court vide order dtd. 19/6/2025 passed in W.P. No. 21574 of 2025 ( Smt. Asha Tiwari Vs. State ofM.P. and others) and also by this Court vide order dtd. 14/7/2025 passed in W.P. No. 24542 of 2025 ( I.K. Mansoori Vs. State of M.P. and others). It is contended that in the present case, the Authority while deciding the representation has ignored this aspect of the matter that in terms of Clause 22 of the transfer policy, the employees who are approaching the age of superannuation should not be subjected to transfer in view of their impending superannuation.