The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted interim relief to a forest department employee challenging his transfer from Dewas to Bhopal, allowing him to continue at his current posting until authorities decide his representation and consider his personal and service-related hardships.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted interim relief to a forest department employee who challenged his transfer from Dewas district to Bhopal.
While hearing a writ petition filed by Dinesh Waskel, the Court noted that an employee can submit a representation against a transfer order and request consideration of personal and service-related hardships.
Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla passed the order in the petition challenging the transfer of Waskel from Kannod in Dewas district to the office of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in Bhopal.
The High Court directed the authorities to examine his representation within 30 days. It also permitted him to continue at his current place of posting until a decision is taken on his representation.
During the proceedings, Advocate Yash Pal Rathore argued for the petitioner that Waskel had already been transferred once in June 2025 from Bhikangaon in Khargone district to Kannod in Dewas district.
He further submitted that the most recent transfer order dated May 14, 2026 was issued before the petitioner had even completed one year at his then-current posting and was not backed by any compelling administrative requirement.
The petitioner also placed his family circumstances before the Court. He stated that his daughter recently gained admission to Class VI, while his son secured admission to Class II. Waskel additionally submitted that his daughter is suffering from Osteomyelitis, a serious medical condition requiring sustained care and attention.
Opposing the petition, Government Advocate Drishti Rawal filed a reply on behalf of the State without formal issuance of notice. The State contended that the transfer policy relied upon by the petitioner would not apply to the Forest Department. It also claimed that the transfer was issued due to administrative exigency and in the public interest.
The State further informed the Court that the petitioner had already been relieved from his earlier assignment and that a temporary arrangement had been made by granting additional charge to the Divisional Forest Officer, Bagli.
After hearing both parties, the Court did not enter into the merits of the transfer dispute. Instead, it highlighted the employee’s entitlement to seek redressal from the employer through a proper representation.
In this context, the Court observed,
“The employee has a right to make a representation against the transfer order to the employer.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed and comprehensive representation before the competent authority within three working days.
It also directed that, if such a representation is filed within the prescribed time, the competent authority must consider and decide it in accordance with law, within a period of 30 days from the date of filing.
Importantly, the Court granted interim protection as well. Noting that no regular incumbent had been posted in Waskel’s place and that the department’s arrangement was only temporary through additional charge to another officer the Court held that “till the representation is decided by the respondent No.1, the petitioner shall be allowed to work at the present place of posting.”
With these directions, the High Court closed the petition without making any observations on the merits of the transfer order and without awarding costs to either side.