MP High Court: Personal Hardship Is Not A Legal Ground To Quash Transfer

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Jabalpur Bench has dismissed a petition filed by a Nagar Palika Parishad employee challenging his transfer from Dhanpuri to Shahdol, holding that transfer guidelines issued by the State Government are merely administrative instructions with no statutory force, and that their breach cannot render a transfer order illegal.

Justice Vivek Kumar Singh was hearing a writ petition filed by Bharat Sharan Singh, appointed as a Peon on compassionate grounds on 30 December 1995 and posted at Nagar Palika Parishad, Dhanpuri, District Shahdol, since 14 July 2005. He was transferred to Nagar Palika Parishad, Shahdol, by an order dated 15 June 2026, and relieved of his duties on 27 July 2026.

The petitioner had earlier challenged the same transfer before the High Court in a separate writ petition, which was disposed of on 23 June 2026 with a direction to the competent authority to decide his representation within 30 days, and a stay on the transfer for 30 days or till the representation was decided, whichever was earlier. Pursuant to this, the petitioner submitted a representation on 21 July 2026, but before it could be decided, the relieving order was issued on 27 July 2026.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Ram Tamrakar, appearing with Advocate Ayush Soni for the petitioner, argued that the transfer violated the State's transfer policy dated 22 May 2026, as it was issued without the approval of the Minister-in-Charge, and also breached Section 94 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961, contending that a Class-IV employee holds a "council-wise lien" and cannot be shifted between municipal councils without cogent reasons. It was further argued that there was no genuine administrative exigency, since no replacement had been posted at Dhanpuri, and that the relieving order bypassed the Court's earlier direction. The petitioner also cited personal hardship, stating he is the primary caregiver for his 65-year-old mother.

Government Advocate Yogesh Dhande, appearing for the State, and Advocate Siddharth Shukla, appearing for the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad, opposed the petition, submitting that transfer is an incident of service and that the petitioner, holding a transferable post, had no vested right to continue at a particular station. It was pointed out that the stay granted earlier was for a strict maximum of 30 days from 23 June 2026, which lapsed on 23 July 2026, making the authorities competent to issue the relieving order on 27 July 2026. It was also submitted that the transfer was within the same district, causing no extreme geographical displacement.

Dismissing the plea, the Court reiterated that "transfer is an incident of service" and that the "scope of judicial review in matters of transfer is highly circumscribed," with courts not ordinarily interfering unless an order is vitiated by mala fides, passed by an incompetent authority, or in violation of statutory provisions. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in State of M.P vs. Shankarlal, the Court held that the State Government has the power to transfer any officer or servant of a Municipal Council under Section 94, even as it acknowledged that such power over employees drawing small emoluments should be "exercised sparingly and not as a matter of routine."

On the transfer policy, the Court held that such guidelines are administrative instructions that "do not have statutory force," and their breach does not make a transfer order illegal. It observed that personal hardships, including the medical condition of the petitioner's mother, are matters for the employer to weigh "on sympathetic grounds" and do not furnish legal grounds to quash the order. On the timing of the relieving order, the Court found that since the 30-day stay period had already expired on 23 July 2026, the relieving order issued four days later could not be termed a violation of its earlier direction.

Finding no jurisdictional error, mala fides, or statutory violation, the Court dismissed the petition, with no order as to costs.

Case Title: Bharat Sharan Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others

Date of Order: August 20, 2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Kumar Singh