Dismissed

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar v. President, Satara City Mun. Council, Satara and Anr.

Bombay HC9 Dec 2005SA/212/1990

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a second appeal concerning a decades-old government transfer order, the Bombay High Court held that no interference was warranted. Citing the extreme lapse of time (25 years) and the administrative nature of transfer orders, the court dismissed the appeal without deciding the legal merits.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs, keeping all points open.

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar Vs President, Satara City… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

-: 1 :-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 212 OF 1990

¶5

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar..... ..... Appellant.

¶6

Versus

¶7

President, Satara City Municipal
Council, Satara & Anr.

¶8

.... Respondents.

¶9

Mr. C.S.Patil with Mr. I. S. Thakur for Appellant.

¶10

Mr. R. G. Ketkar for Respondent No.2.

¶11

CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.
DATED : 9TH DECEMBER, 2005.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The present second appeal is filed by the
original plaintiff, whose Civil Suit No.517 of 1980
was decreed by an order dated 19th November, 1984
passed by the 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Satara, whereby, the transfer order dated 24th
November, 1980 passed by respondent No.1 transferring
the services of the plaintiff / appellant from School
Board to Municipality was held to be illegal and void.
However, the Additional District Judge, Satara by an
order dated 12th December, 1989 allowed the Regular

¶14

-: 2 :-

¶15

Civil Appeal No. 72 of 1986 filed by the original
Defendant No.2 and the trial Court judgment and decree
was set aside and dismissed the suit. Therefore, this
second appeal by the original plaintiff / appellant.

¶16

2. The transfer of any of the employee is always a
matter of administration and there is nothing wrong
which need to be looked into unless the same is
perverse and/or bad in law. In the present case,
admittedly, the impugned order of transfer is dated
24th November, 1980. In the second appeal, now there
is no point in considering the merits of the transfer
order in question. There is no perversity as such
which can be borne out or pointed out by the
appellant, which need to be interfered with the
finding given by the appellate court based on the
material available on the record.

¶17

3. The ad-interim relief was granted by this court on
4th June, 1990. By an order dated 20th November, 2002
the civil application No. 1585 of 1990 for interim
relief was allowed. In the result, the impugned
judgment and order dated 12th December, 1984 passed by
the Additional District Judge, Satara has been stayed
and the respondent No.1 / Municipal Council has been

¶18

-: 3 :-

¶19

restrained from transferring or reverting the
appellant from his present post of Senior Clerk under
the School Board, Satara.

¶20

4. By an affidavit dated 8th October, 2003, the
respondent No.2 urged that the transfer order dated
24th November, 1980 was served upon the appellant on
25th November, 1980. The suit was filed on 25th
November, 1980. As there was no interim order or
injunction the transfer was effected. In the result,
the respondent No.2 joined the duty in place of the
appellant. In this process, the Administrative Office
of the Municipal School Board reverted the appellant
on the post of Junior Clerk.

¶21

5. The matter was adjourned from time to time. The
advocate appearing for the appellant is unable to make
any statement for want of instructions.

¶22

6. Taking this all into account, I am not inclined to
interfere with such matter of transfer at this stage
in the fact and circumstances of the case, specially,
after 25 years of the impugned order of transfer. In
view of this, there is no case made out to answer the
substantial question of law as raised.

¶23

-: 4 :-

¶24

7. Keeping all points open, so far as the appellant

¶25

is concerned, the present second appeal is dismissed
with no order as to costs.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

(ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar v. President, Satara City Mun. Council, Satara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar v. President, Satara City Mun. Council, Satara and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sadhana Sampat Mahind and Ors. Vs Ananda Ganpati Mahind and Ors.

Akhinandan M. Thorat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shaikh Yakub Shaikh Abdul Rahiman Vs Shaikh Inus Shaikh Abdul Rahiman (Decd.)by Lrs.

Nandkumar Fakira Ashtekar Vs President, Satara City Mun. Council, Satara and Anr.

Kolhapur Zilla Rajya Abkari Parvana Dharak Samajik Seva Sangh Vs Kolhapur Municipal Corporation

Smt.Manjula R.Pandav Vs Shri. Rajendra N Pandav