1. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.11.2025 whereby he has been transferred from Vishwas CLF Sesaipura to Pragati CLF Lalitpura.

2. Challenging aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's appointment is on contractual nature and for a particular place. Referring to Clause 9.1 of Circular, dated 24.02.2020, he submitted that the person working on contract basis can be transferred only in special circumstances otherwise he cannot be transferred. In support of his submission, he relies upon the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Seema Pasi Vs. The State of M.P. & Ors. (W.A No. 281/2021). He thus prayed for interference by this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents on advance notice tried to justify the impugned transfer and submitted that Clause 9.1 of the aforesaid Circular itself permits transfer of the employees.

4. Considered the arguments on admission.

5. Clause 9.1 of the Circular provides that the appointment of a contractual employee is for a particular place and for a particular work and there is no provision for transfer. However, upon administrative exigencies, the transfer can be made in special circumstances. A perusal of impugned order shows that the transfer has been made only on the ground that the petitioner has remained at a particular place for more than two years.

6. Considering the aforesaid Clause 9.1, the Division Bench in Seema Pasi (supra) held in para-8 & 9 as under;

          "8. On a bare perusal of the of the impugned order oftransfer, it is graphically clear that the transfer has been issued in reference to Clause 9.1 of the Circular dated 24-02-2020 passed by the Panchayat & Rural Development Department, Govt. of M.P. The said Circular was issued in respect of delegation of administrative and financial powers under the M.P. Rajya Gramin Aajevika Mission by superseding all previous circulars. As per Clause 9.1 of the said Circular, it is provided that the services of contractual employees are meant for a specific place and for specific works and, therefore, the services are not transferrable. However, considering the administrative arrangements in special circumstances, services of such employees can be transferred. In the impugned transfer order it is stated that the appellant and other employees, whose names are mentioned in the said list, have been transferred, keeping in view the administrative exigencies. The transfer of the appellant cannot be said to be under rationalization, because the respondents have failed to establish that the appellant is a surplus employee at Jabalpur. On the contrary, in place of the appellant on her transfer, the respondent No.5 has been posted. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant has been transferred under rationalization.

          9. Transfer of contractual employees has been permitted by virtue of Clause 9.1 of the Circular, dated 24-02-2020 only in special circumstances. The respondents have failed to show, that there are special circumstances, under which the appellant has been transferred. It is not the case of the respondents No.2 and 4 that there is any administrative exigency in respect of continuation of the appellant at Jabalpur. The respondent No.5 and her husband have been transferred at Jabalpur on their own request, which is evincible from the request letter submitted by the respondent No.5 and her husband, which has been placed on record as Annexure-RJ/1. It is discernible, that at Jabalpur the appellant was posted and only one post was available. Under the policy - rationalization the appellant could not be transferred, because she was not a surplus employee at Jabalpur. The rationalization can take place, only to shift/transfer the employees who are surplus at one place, and at the other place the posts are vacant."

7. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent-authority is required to re- examine the matter as to whether continuing for more than two years on a particular post would be a sufficient and special ground as contemplated in Clause 9.1 of the Circular. The Division Bench judgment in the case of Seema Pasi (supra) is also required to be considered by the Authorities.

8. In view of the aforesaid, instead of keeping this petition pending, the matter is relegated to Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, Sheopur to re- examine the matter keeping in view the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of Seema Pasi (supra).

9. Till the matter is re-examined and fresh order is passed, transfer of the petitioner vide order, dated 19.11.2025, shall be kept in abeyance.

10. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid direction.