A writ petition challenging a potential transfer was disposed of because the petitioner was due to superannuate before the alleged transfer to Aurangabad could occur, rendering any other benefit unnecessary.
No other benefit granted to petitioner due to imminent superannuation.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 6745 OF 2006
Nitin Bhaskar Tambe ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others
...Respondents
Mr. M.S. Karnik for the petitioner. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent No.1.
Mrs. SuhasiniMutalik for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. J.C. Reddy for respondent No.4.
CORAM : H.S. BEDI, C.J., & V.M. KANADE, J.
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2006 .
P.C.
Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 makes a statement that as the petitioner is to superannuate in about eleven months time, he would not be transferred from Mumbai to Aurangabad. In this view of the matter, we find that no other benefit can be given to the petitioner. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.M. KANADE, J.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether any benefit can be given to a petitioner who is not to be transferred before superannuation.
Nitin Bhaskar Tambe
State of Maharashtra
H.S. BEDI
V.M. KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
