WP/22993/2017 of MAHESH KUMAR MARSKOLE Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH on 28 December 2017

Arguments

THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH

WP-22993-2017

(MAHESH KUMAR MARSKOLEVs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)Jabalpur, Dated : 28-12-2017Shri Jitendra Arya, counsel for the petitioner.Shri Piyush Dharmadhikari, GA for the respondents/state.I.A.No.18571/17 and 18574/17 are taken-up.For the reasons stated therein, IAs are allowed.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the proposedlist of surplus, petitioner preferred objection but without deciding hisobjection, he has been transferred by the impugned order dated12.12.2017. He submits that petitioner has only nine months to servethe department. He is due for retirement in 2018 itself. He submitsthat petitioner will prefer an appeal before respondent No.2 and tilldecision of appeal, he may be protected.Shri Dharmadhikari, GA opposed the said prayer.It is seen that petitioner has only nine months to to and in this factualbackdrop, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with followingdirections -(i) Petitioner will prefer an appeal alongwith copy of this order and Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the proposedlist of surplus, petitioner preferred objection but without deciding hisobjection, he has been transferred by the impugned order dated12.12.2017. He submits that petitioner has only nine months to servethe department. He is due for retirement in 2018 itself. He submitsthat petitioner will prefer an appeal before respondent No.2 and tilldecision of appeal, he may be protected.

It is seen that petitioner has only nine months to to and in this factualbackdrop, I deem it proper to dispose of this petition with followingdirections -

(i) Petitioner will prefer an appeal alongwith copy of this order andsubmit it before respondent No.2 within seven working days fromtoday, failing which the interim protections will not be available to thepetitioner.

(ii) In turn, the said respondents shall consider and decide therepresentation in accordance with law by a reasoned orderexpeditiously.

(iii) Subject to aforesaid, till final decision is taken on the appeal, theimpugned order dated 12.12.2017 to the extent it relates tot hepetitioner , shall remain stayed.

Petition is disposed of without expressing any view of merits.C.C today.(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGEMKL

(SUJOY PAUL)JUDGEMKLDigitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2018.01.02 11:50:25 +05'30'High Court of Madhya Pradesh