Smt. Vandana Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
1 WP-47378-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
th
ON THE 6 OF NOVEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 47378 of 2026
CNR No.: MPHC030318752026
SMT. VANDANA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR
Appearance:
Shri Raj Bahadur Singh Tomar - learned counsel for petitioner.
Shri K.S.Tomar - learned Government Advocate for respondent/State.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been
filed seeking following relief(s):
"7.1 That, the posting of the petitioner in the impugned order
annexure P/1 passed by respondent No.1 dated 4.11.2026 in
the Govt. Higher Secondary School Hastinapur Morar
(Rural) Distt. Gwalior may kindly be quashed.

7.2 That , the respondent no.1 and 2 kindly directed either
modified the posting of the petitioner in the institution
situated in the Gwalior city or permit her to superannuate in
the present place of posting.

7.3 That, other relief doing justice including cost be ordered."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was
initially promoted from the post of Principal, High School, to the post of
Principal, Higher Secondary School, vide order dated 28.7.2026 and was
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
2 WP-47378-2026
posted in the same school. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 4.11.2026,

the petitioner has been transferred and posted at Government Higher
Secondary School, Hastinapur Morar (Rural) Distt. Gwalior. It is further
submitted that the petitioner is due to retire on 30.4.2027. Learned counsel
also submits that the petitioner's son is suffering from a chronic neurological
condition (brain haemorrhage) and is completely bedridden.
3. Per contra, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned
transfer order and opposed the petitioner’s prayer, submitting that transfer is
an incident of service.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Perusal of record reveals that petitioner was initially promoted from
the post of Principal, High School, to the post of Principal, Higher Secondary
School, vide order dated 28.7.2026 and was posted in the same school.
Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 4.11.2026, the petitioner has been
transferred and posted at Government Higher Secondary School, Hastinapur
Morar (Rural) Distt. Gwalior. Petitioner is due to retire on 30.4.2027. The
son of petitioner is suffering from a chronic neurological condition (brain
haemorrhage) and is completely bedridden. Recently the Indore Bench of this
Court vide order dated 19.06.2025 in W.P.No.21574/2025 (Smt. Asha Tiwari
vs. State of M.P. and Others) has taken into consideration the transfer of an
employee, who is at the verge of his service career. The co-ordinate Bench
while taking note of the provisions of Rule 49, 57 and 59 of Madhya Pradesh
Civil Services (Pension) Rules 1976, has even proceeded to cancel the
transfer order of the similarly situated employee. The Indore Bench in Smt.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
3 WP-47378-2026
Asha Tiwari (supra) has held in paragraphs 3 and 4 as under:

"03. The retirement of the petitioner is in the month of
September, 2026. Now, she is having only about 15 months
service left for her retirement. Rule 49 (1) of Madhya
Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules' 1976 provides that
every Head of the Department/Head of Office shall have a
list prepared every six months of all Gazetted and Non-
Gazetted Government servants who are due to retire under
his order within the next 24 to 30 months of that date. Rule
57 provides that every Head of Office shall undertake the
work of preparing pension papers two years before the date
on which a Government servant is due to retire on
superannuation. The aforesaid provision has been made in
the pension Rules so that the employee may get the pension
and other retiral dues immediately after retirement. If there is
delay on part of State of M.P. to prepare the pension paper,
then the State is liable to pay the interest.

04. Rule 59 also provides that on reaching the stage i.e. 12
months before the date of retirement, the Head of office shall
take up the actual work of preparation of pension papers and
shall send to the audit officer. All these exercises are
required to be completed within 1 or 2 year before the
retirement of the government employee, therefore, if
petitioner is transferred at the verge of retirement then there
would be possibility of delaying of her pension. Admittedly,
the petitioner is having only about 15 months service left for
her retirement and her pension papers have to be prepared by
the head of the office. In such circumstances, the impugned
transfer order of the petitioner dated 10.06.2025 cannot be
sustained. "
6. It is correct that transfer is normally an incident of service and an
employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place. It is also
correct that the Court should normally not interfere with an order of transfer
passed by the competent authority. However, this does not mean that every
transfer order is beyond judicial review. If the order is contrary to law or has
been passed for an improper purpose, or if relevant circumstances have not
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
4 WP-47378-2026
been considered, the Court can interfere.

7. In the present case, one important circumstance is that petitioner is
due to retire in July, 2027. At the time of passing of the transfer order, only
about ten months of service remained. This Court has already considered
similar cases. In Virendra Singh v. State of M.P. & Others, W.P.
No.15608/2021, decided on 10.05.2022, the Court considered the case of an
employee who was nearing retirement and examined Rules 49, 57 and 59 of
the M.P. Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976. These provisions show that
the process relating to retirement and pension papers starts well before the
actual date of retirement.
8. The same principle was considered in Smt. Asha Tiwari (supra). In
that case also, petitioner had approximately fifteen months of service
remaining. This Court considered Rules 49, 57 and 59 of the M.P. Civil
Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 and held that transfer at such a stage may
cause difficulty in preparation of pension papers. The transfer order was
accordingly interfered with.
9. The aforesaid decisions are relevant to the present case. The State
has relied upon Clause 24 of the Transfer Policy and has submitted that the
said clause applies only when less than one year of service remains. In my
opinion, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered only with reference
to Clause 24 of the Transfer Policy. The question is also required to be
considered in the light of the statutory provisions relating to preparation of
pension papers. The Pension Rules contemplate action well before
retirement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
5 WP-47378-2026
10. The Court is also conscious of the limited scope of interference in

transfer matters. However, judicial restraint does not mean that the Court
should ignore the statutory rules or the surrounding circumstances. Each case
has to be considered on its own facts. The present case is not an ordinary
transfer case. The petitioner has only about ten months of service remaining.
Similar circumstances have already been considered by this Court in
Virendra Singh (supra) and Smt. Asha Tiwari (supra).
11. The Division Bench of this Court in R.S. Choudhary Vs. State of
M.P. reported in 2007(2) ILR MP Series 1329, after taking stock of various
judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, held that transfer is ordinarily an
incident of service unless vitiated by statutory violations or mala fide
exercise of power. Relevant paras of R.S. Choudhary (supra) are as under:
10. In B. Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka, (1986) 4 SCC
131 : AIR 1986 SC 1955 the Apex Court has held as under:
—

“5…If the power is exercised mala fide, then obviously the
order of transfer is liable to be struck down. They relied on
the observations made by this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State
of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3 : (1974) 2 SCR 348 : (AIR
1974 SC 555) for the positivistic view that ‘equality is
antithetic to arbitrariness’ and held that the observations
equally apply to the policy regarding the transfer of public
servants. It was observed:

“It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an
incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service
and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter.
The Government is the best judge to decide how to distribute
and utilise the services of its employees. However this power
must be exercised honestly, bona, fide and reasonably. It
should be exercised in public, interest. If the exercise of
power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
6 WP-47378-2026
an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to
mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent
transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers
cannot but be held as in fide. A transfer is mala fide when it
is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course
or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of
service but for other purpose than is to accommodate another
person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of
rule of law and good administration, that even administrative
actions should be just and fair.”

The observation that transfer is also an implied condition of
service is just an observation in passing. It certainly cannot
be relied upon in support of the contention that an order of
transfer ipso facto varies to the disadvantage of a
Government servant, any of his conditions of service making
the impugned order appealable under R. 19(1)(a) of the
Rules.

6. One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and
unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable
harm to a Government servant and drive him to desperation
It disrupts the education of his children and leads to
numerous other complications and problems and results in
hardship and demoralisation. It therefore follows that the
policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should
apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time., it cannot
be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts
are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one
department of the Government is not conducive to good
administration. It creates. vested interest and therefore we
find that even from the British times the general policy has
been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We
wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV
employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the
Government will keep these considerations in view while
making an order of transfer.” (Emphasis supplied)

11. In Mrs. Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC
659 : AIR 1991 SC 532 their Lordships have ruled thus:—

“4. In our opinion, the courts should not interfere with a
transfer order which are made in public interest and for
administrative reasons unless the transfer orders are made in

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
7 WP-47378-2026
violation of any mandatory statutory rule or on the ground of
mala fide. A Government servant holding a transferable post
has no vested right to remain posted at one place or the other,
he is liable to be transferred from one place to the other.
Transfer orders issued by the competent authority do not
violate any of his legal rights. Even if a transfer order is
passed in violation of executive instructions or orders, the
Courts ordinarily should not interfere with the order instead
affected party should approach the higher authorities in the
Department. If the courts continue to interfere with day-to-
day transfer orders issued by the Government and its
subordinate authorities, there will be complete chaos in the
Administration which would not be conducive to public
interest. The High Court overlooked these aspects in
interfering with the transfer orders,” (underlining is ours)

12. In Rajendra Roy v. Union of India, (1993) 1 SCC 148 :
AIR 1993 SC 1236 then- Lordships of the Apex Court have
ruled thus:

“7…. It is true that the order of transfer often causes a lot of
difficulties and dislocation in the family set up of the
concerned employees but on that score the order of transfer is
not liable to be struck down. Unless such order is passed
mala fide or in violation of the rules of service and guidelines
for transfer without any proper justification, the Court and
the Tribunal should not interfere with the order of transfer. In
a transferable post an order of transfer is a normal
consequence and personal difficulties are matters for
consideration of the department We are in agreement with
the Central Administrative Tribunal that the appellant has not
been able to lay any firm foundation to substantiate the case
of malice or mala fide against the respondents in passing the
impugned order of transfer. It does not appear to us that the
appellant has been moved out just to get rid of him and the
impugned order of transfer was passed mala fide by seizing
an opportunity to transfer Shri Patra to Orissa from Calcutta.
It may not be always possible to establish malice in fact in a
straight-cut manner. In an appropriate case, it is possible to
draw reasonable inference of mala fide action from the
pleadings and antecedent facts and circumstances. But for
such inference there must be firm foundation of facts pleaded
and established. Such inference cannot be drawn on the basis
of insinuation and vague suggestions, In this case, we are

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
8 WP-47378-2026
unable to draw any inference of mala fide action in
transferring the appellant from the facts pleaded before the
Tribunal.” (Emphasis added)

13. The Apex Court in Union of India v. S.L. Abbas, (1993)
4 SCC 357 : AIR 1993 SC 2444 has expressed the view as
under:—

“7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the
appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is
vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory
provisions, the Court cannot interfere with it. While ordering
the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in
mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject.
Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to
his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same
having regard to the exigencies of administration. The
guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must
be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does
not confer upon the Government employee a legally
enforceable right.

8. xx xx xx

9. Shri Goswami, learned counsel for the respondent relies
upon the decision of this Court in Bank of India v. Jagjit
Singh Mehta, (1992) 1 SCC 306 : (AIR 1992 SCW 170)
rendered by a Bench of which one of us (J.S. Verma, J.) was
a member. On a perusal of the judgment, we do not think it
supports the respondent in any manner. It is observed therein
(para 5 of AIR):—

“There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as
practicable the husband and wife who are both employed
should be posted at the same station even if their employers
be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious.
However, this does not mean that their place of posting
should invariably be one of their choice, even though their
preference, may be taken into account while making the
decision in accordance with the administrative needs. In the
case of all-India services, the hardship resulting from the two
being posted at different stations may be unavoidable at times
particularly when they belong to different services and one of
them cannot be transferred to the place of the other's posting.

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
9 WP-47378-2026
While choosing the career and a particular service, the couple
have to bear in mind this factor and be prepared to face such
a hardship if the administrative needs and transfer policy do
not permit the posting of both at one place without sacrifice
of the requirements of the administration and needs of other
employees. In such a case the couple have to make their
choice at the threshold between career prospects and family
life. After giving preference to the career prospects by
accepting such a promotion or any appointment in an allIndia
service with the incident of transfer to any place in India,
subordinating the need of the couple living together at one
station, they cannot as of right claim to be relieved of the
ordinary incidents of all-India service and avoid transfer to a
different place on the ground that the spouses thereby would
be posted at different places……No doubt the guideline
requires the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as
practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such
a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not
consider it feasible. The only thing required is that the
departmental authorities should consider this aspect along
with the exigencies of administration and enable the two
spouses to live together at one station if it is possible without
any detriment to the administrative needs and the claim of
other employees.” (Emphasis added)

10. The said observations in fact tend to negative the
respondent's contentions instead of supporting them. The
judgment also does not support the Respondent's contention
that if such an order is questioned in a Court or the Tribunal,
the authority is obliged to justify the transfer by adducing the
reasons therefor. It does not also say that the Court or the
Tribunal can quash the order of transfer, if any of the
administrative instructions/guidelines are not followed, much
less can it be characterised as mala fide for that reason. To
reiterate, the order of transfer can be questioned in a Court or
Tribunal only where it is passed mala fide or where it is made
in violation of the statutory provisions.”

14. In Union of India v. N.R. Thomas, 1993 Supp (1) SCC
704 it has been ruled as under:—
“8. In the present case, it cannot be said that the transfer
order of the respondent transferring him out-of Kerala Circle
is violative of any statutory rule or that the transfer order
suffers on the ground of mala fides. The submissions of the

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
10 WP-47378-2026
respondent that some of his juniors are retained by Kerala
Circle and that his transfer is against the policy of the
Government posting the husband and wife in the same station
as far as possible, cannot be countenanced since the
respondent holding a transferable post has no vested right to
remain in the Kerala Circle itself and cannot claim, as a
matter of right the posting in that circle even on promotion.”
(emphasis supplied)

12. In the present case, petitioner has been able to establish that the
impugned transfer order has been issued in violation of the statutory
provisions which are 49, 57 and 59 of the M.P. Civil Services (Pension)
Rules, 1976 governing his service. Thus, the case does not fall within the
ordinary rule of non-interference in matters of transfer. As held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court although transfer is ordinarily an incident of service
and the employee has no vested right to remain posted at a particular place,
however, the Writ Court can interfere where the transfer order is vitiated by
violation of statutory provisions. In view of the aforesaid settled legal
position and since the impugned order in the present case suffers from such
statutory violation, this Court is justified in exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution and interfering with the impugned transfer
order.
13. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this petition is
disposed of with the following directions:
i. The impugned order dated 4.11.2026, insofar as it relates
to the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
ii. The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to
continue at his present place of posting, i.e., Gwalior, and to
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:34425
11 WP-47378-2026
discharge his duties as Principal, Higher Secondary School.

(ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT)
JUDGE
Ahmad

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 11/6/2026
6:19:30 PM