RAJARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 5/7/2019 passed by respondent No. 1, thereby transferring the petitioner from District Jail Ashoknagar to District Jail Singrauli on administrative grounds.

(2.) It is not out of place to mention that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition No. 13133/2019, which was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to prefer a fresh petition before this Court, however, it appears that no fresh pleadings have been made in this petition and thus the earlier petition was withdrawn without any reasonable reason, thus, the said conduct appears to be an example of bench hunting which cannot be accepted and hence deprecated. Since the liberty was granted to the petitioner, therefore, this case is heard on merits.

(3.) The petitioner is working on the post of Jail Superintendent, District Jail and according to him, he is aged about 60 years and is due for superannuation on 30/11/2020. An option was sought from the petitioner that from which place he wants to get retired and accordingly, he had given his option that he would like to retire from District Jail, Ashoknagar, however, instead of honouring the option given by the petitioner, the respondents have transferred him to District Jail Singrauli and no reason has been assigned for not accepting the option given by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner was transferred to District Jail, Ashoknagar by order dated 10/7/2017 and before he could complete his tenure of three years, he has been transferred. It is further submitted that the petitioner will settle at Gwalior after his superannuation and, therefore, the respondents should have posted him at any place nearer to Gwalior because the post of Jail Superintendent, District Jail Shivpuri and District Jail Guna are lying vacant. Since no incumbent has been posted in place of petitioner and, therefore, it is clear that there is no administrative exigency. The son of the petitioner is 70% disabled and as per clause 11.13 of the transfer policy, the petitioner should not have been transferred. The mother of the petitioner is 90 years old and she is blind and suffering from various ailments and the petitioner is the only person to look after her and, therefore, the transfer of the petitioner to a place which is around 1000 Km. away from Ashoknagar is arbitrary and colourable exercise of powers. The petitioner has submitted a representation, but no decision has been taken so far.