Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Single Bench of Sujoy Paul, J. has held that an employee does not have any indefeasible right to get transferred at a nearby place, and he cannot challenge a transfer order on the mere grounds of personal inconvenience.

In the instant case, the petitioner who was employed at Shahgarh was transferred to Malthon. He challenged the transfer order on the ground that he is a heart patient, and his aged mother was dependent on him. He also submitted that he could have been transferred to Banda or Sagar, where the posts were lying vacant. The High Court noted that the respondents had considered that the petitioner was a heart patient and he was transferred to a distance of 130 kilometers only. The Court also observed that a transfer order can only be interfered with if it runs contrary to any statutory provision (not policy guidelines), issued by an incompetent authority, changes the service condition of an employee to his detriment or proved to be mala fide. Since, no such ingredient was found in the petition, it was accordingly dismissed. [Madan Kumar Athya v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 1206 of 2017, decided on January 01, 2017]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.