MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGEMENT ON DR. RAM KRISHNA JHA V/S THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

JABALPUR, India, Feb. 25 -- Madhya Pradesh High Court issued the following judgment/order on Jan. 27:

1. Appellant impugns order dated 26.09.2025; whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging his transfer order, has been dismissed. Appellant has been transferred from Government College Birsinghpur Pali, District Umaria to Government College Tendukheda, District Narsinghpur.

2 . Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the transfer order is erroneous inasmuch as the same has been passed on the verge of his retirement. He submits that the writ court has erred in not considering the factum that the appellant has to superannuate on 30.09.2026.

3 . The record reveals that appellant was transferred from Government College Deosar, District Singrauli to Government College Sitamau, District Mandsaur vide order dated 06.08.2021 and thereafter by an order dated 30.12.2022 at the request of appellant he was transferred from Government College, Sitamau, District Mandsaur to Government College Birsinghpur Pali, District Umaria. Appellant served there till 09.06.2025 whereafter by the impugned order, appellant has sought to be transferred to District Narsinghpur.

4 . Appellant impugned the said order, however, by the impugned order dated 26.12.2025, the petition was dismissed.

5 . Learned counsel for the appellant very candidly states that after the dismissal of the petition, appellant has joined the place of posting and is continuing at the said place.

6 . We note that the impugned transfer order was passed on 09.06.2025, which was beyond the stipulated period of 12 months from the date of his superannuation i.e. 30.09.2026. Appellant has also already joined the new place of posting and is working there since September, 2025. The policy restricts transfer of an employee within 12 months of superannuation, however, said Clause is also subservient to the interest of the administration.

7. In the instant case, since more than one year was left to retirement when the impugned order was passed and furthermore, in view of the fact that appellant has already joined the place of posting about 4 months ago, we do not find any merit in the appeal.

8. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.