Madhya Pradesh High CourtAdministrative and Public LawCivil Procedure and Evidence

MP HC Upholds Refusal To Stay Assistant Labour Commissioner’s Suspension Over Alleged Pressure On Worker To Withdraw Court Case

Bhanu Pratap Singhv.The State Of Madhya Pradesh

MP HC Upholds Refusal To Stay Assistant Labour Commissioner’s Suspension Over Alleged Pressure On Worker To Withdraw Court Case. Bhanu Pratap Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh. Madhya Pradesh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Judge’s discretionary decision not to grant interim protection against the suspension order

The court held

The Division Bench held that the appellant had not established an error warranting appellate interference with the refusal of interim protection.

It also directed

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the appellant remained at liberty to press for interim relief or final disposal before the writ court after the respondents filed their response.

01Facts

The appellant, an Assistant Labour Commissioner, was transferred from Singrauli to Indore by order dated 16 June 2026. After the High Court stayed the termination of Labour Inspector Navneet Kumar Pandey on 19 June 2026, the State suspended the appellant on 27 September 2026, alleging that he obstructed Pandey’s joining and pressured him to withdraw his writ petition.

¶ 2–5

The appellant challenged the suspension, asserting that he had already been transferred before the stay order and that the required ministerial approval had not been obtained. The Single Judge issued notice but declined to grant interim protection. The appellant appealed against that interlocutory order.

¶ 2–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the Single Judge’s discretionary decision not to grant interim protection against the suspension order

¶ 10–11

ii.2. Whether the appellant’s claims regarding lack of ministerial approval and his transfer from Singrauli warranted interim relief before the State had filed its response

¶ 6, 12–13

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaya Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

¶ 1

The Court applied the principle that a Division Bench has a limited scope to interfere with a Single Judge’s discretionary interlocutory order; interference is generally unwarranted unless the order is wholly without jurisdiction, arbitrary, or contrary to settled law.

¶ 10

It also observed that a suspension order is generally not stayed at the first hearing without giving the State an opportunity to place the relevant records and its response before the writ court.

¶ 11

Provisions in the judgment · 1

M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 Section 2

04Reasoning

The Single Judge had not rejected the writ petition or finally determined the legality of the suspension; the order merely directed notice to the State.

¶ 11

The appellant’s assertions about ministerial approval and the timing and effect of his transfer involved factual and procedural matters that required clarification from the State’s records.

¶ 12

In the absence of a demonstrated jurisdictional error or other legal defect, the Division Bench found no basis to disturb the Single Judge’s decision to hear the State before deciding interim relief.

¶ 13–14

05Holding

The Division Bench held that the appellant had not established an error warranting appellate interference with the refusal of interim protection.

¶ 14–15

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs; the appellant remained at liberty to press for interim relief or final disposal before the writ court after the respondents filed their response.

¶ 13, 15
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Original Court PDF

Bhanu Pratap SinghvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court · October 26, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment