Employee Has Right To Challenge Transfer Through Representation: Madhya Pradesh High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted interim protection to a forest department employee who challenged his transfer from Dewas district to Bhopal, observing that an employee has the right to submit a representation against a transfer order and seek consideration of personal and service-related hardships.

Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla passed the order while hearing a writ petition filed by Dinesh Waskel, who questioned the legality of his transfer from Kannod in Dewas district to the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Bhopal. The Court directed the authorities to consider his representation within 30 days and allowed him to continue at his present place of posting until a decision is taken.

Appearing for the petitioner, Advocate Yash Pal Rathore argued that Waskel had already been transferred once in June 2025 from Bhikangaon in Khargone district to Kannod in Dewas district. He submitted that the latest transfer order dated May 14, 2026 was issued before the petitioner had completed even one year at his present posting and was not supported by any compelling administrative necessity.

The petitioner also highlighted his family circumstances before the Court. It was submitted that his daughter had recently secured admission in Class VI while his son had taken admission in Class II. The petition further stated that his daughter is suffering from Osteomyelitis, a serious medical condition that requires continued attention and care.

On behalf of the State, Government Advocate Drishti Rawal opposed the petition and filed a reply without formal issuance of notice. The State argued that the transfer policy relied upon by the petitioner was not applicable to the Forest Department. It further maintained that the transfer had been issued on grounds of administrative exigency and in public interest.

The State also informed the Court that the petitioner had already been relieved from his previous post and that an interim arrangement had been made by assigning additional charge to the Divisional Forest Officer, Bagli.

After considering the submissions of both sides, the Court refrained from entering into the merits of the transfer dispute but emphasized the employee's right to seek redressal from the employer through a formal representation.

In its order, the Court observed, "the employee has a right to make a representation against the transfer order to the employer."

Taking note of the circumstances placed on record, Justice Shukla disposed of the petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the competent authority within three working days.

The Court further directed that if such a representation is submitted within the stipulated period, the authority must consider and decide it "in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days" from the date of its filing.

Significantly, the Court also granted interim relief in favour of the petitioner. It noted that no regular incumbent had been posted in place of Waskel and that the arrangement made by the department was only temporary in nature through the grant of additional charge to another officer.

Considering this aspect, the Court held that "till the representation is decided by the respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be allowed to work at the present place of posting."

With these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition without expressing any opinion on the merits of the transfer order and without imposing costs on either side.

Case Title: Dinesh Waskel v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Date of Order: June 8, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla