Transfer of government employee within one year of retirement is liable to be set aside to prevent pension delays.

The petitioner, a Class IV employee (Peon) serving at Urdu Higher Secondary School, Damoh, challenged his transfer to Govt. Higher Secondary School, Kumhari.

This is the petitioner’s third round of litigation.

Initially, the Court directed the District Education Officer (DEO) to decide the petitioner's representation, which was subsequently rejected.

A Writ Appeal (W.A. No. 2647 of 2025) was then filed, where a Division Bench set aside the rejection, observing that the DEO had failed to consider the medical condition of the petitioner’s wife.

In compliance, the DEO passed a fresh order dated 12.02.2026 (Annexure P-1), which the petitioner again challenged on the grounds that it still failed to address the illness of his wife and ignored his proximity to superannuation.

Whether the impugned order passed by the District Education Officer, Damoh, was in compliance with the Division Bench's direction to consider the medical condition of the petitioner’s wife.

Whether a government servant at the verge of retirement (within 11 months) should be transferred, considering the potential delay in the processing of pension and retiral dues.

The Court applied the administrative principle that quasi-judicial orders must comply with specific directions issued by superior courts.

It further relied on the precedent established in *Virendra Singh v. State of M.P. and others* (W.P. No. 15608 of 2021), which holds that employees with less than one year of service remaining should ordinarily not be transferred to avoid administrative delays in pension processing.

The Court also referenced Rules 49, 57, and 59 of the *Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976*, which mandate the initiation of pension paper preparation 12 to 24 months prior to retirement to ensure timely disbursement.

The Court found that the DEO's impugned order dated 12.02.2026 was deficient as it failed to address the "factum of illness" of the petitioner’s wife, despite a specific mandate from the Division Bench to do so.

Moving to the petitioner's personal circumstances, the Court noted that the petitioner is due for superannuation in 11 months.

Applying the *Virendra Singh* precedent, the Court reasoned that transferring an employee at the "verge of retirement" creates a significant risk of delaying the preparation of pension papers, which must be finalized by the Head of Office where the employee is stationed.

Given the short remaining tenure, the Court determined that remitting the matter back to the DEO for a fourth time would serve no "fruitful purpose".

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to protection from transfer due to his impending retirement and the respondents' failure to follow judicial directions regarding his wife's health.

The petitioner was permitted to continue at his current place of posting, Urdu Higher Secondary School, Damoh.