Disposed

Parshuram Devaji Patil v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2007WP/4502/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an administrative transfer of an employee nearing superannuation. The court directed the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority and maintain status quo pending a decision, without issuing an interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to make representation to Competent Authority within a week; parties to maintain status quo.

Parshuram Devaji Patil Vs the Chief Executive… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

APPELLATE SIDE.

¶3

WRIT PETITIONNO.4502 OF 2007

¶4

PARSHURAM DEVAJI PATIL ... PETITIONER VS. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFIER Z.P. RAIGAD (ALIBAG) &ORS. ... RESPONDENTS.

¶5

MR. S.S.PAKALE FOR THE PETITIONER. LMR. N.P.DESHPANDE AGP FOR THE RESPONDENT NO. 4.

¶6

CORAM : J.N.PATEL & AMJAD A. SAYED, JJ.

¶7

DATE : June 13, 2007.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

The Petitioner has approached this Court, invoking its Supervisory and Writ Jurisdiction, challenging the transfer from Panchayat Samiti Pen to Education department, Alibag, on administrative ground

¶10

2.		It is	the case o	f the Pe	titioner	that the
impugned		Order	dated	8th	May,	2007	is	not	only mala
fide	but	con	trary	to	the	guide-li	nes	issued	by the
Respondent		NO.4	in	ac	cordance		with	the	Government
Resolution		dat	ed 2	5.4.2005	,	Circular		dated	19.5.2006,

¶11

which governs the service condition of the Petitioner,
in so far as it relates to the transfer and clause 8 of
the said Government Resolution, which is regarding
general instructions to be followed while effecting
transfer of Zilla Parishad Employees, which clearly
states that employee who is reaching the age of
superannuation (less than one year is remaining for
superannuation), the transfer of such employee shall
not be made even on the administrative grounds and
therefore, this Court should grant interim Order,
staying the transfer of the Petitioner, till the

¶12

Petition is finally disposed of, otherwise, the

¶13

petition will become infructuous.

¶14

In our view, issuing notice to the Respondents

¶15

before		admission	or	ad	mitti	ng the	p	etition	would	serve
no	purpose.		On	the	other	hand,	the	petition	can	be
disposed	of	by	giving	lib	erty	to	the	Petitioner	to	make
a	represe	ntation	to	the		Competent	Au	thority,	who	has
ordered	tr	ansfer	of	the		Petitioner,	to	con	sider	his
case	in	the	light	of	clau	se (8)	of	the	Gov	ernment
Resolution,		which	g	overns		the		service	co	nditions,

¶16

specifically, transfers and the Competent Authority

¶17

will then take a decision in the matter.

¶18

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that till then the Court may protect the Petitioner as

¶19

he	has	not been	relieve	d ye	t. Th	e statement	has	been
made	by	the	learned	Coun	sel for	the Petitio	ner,	after
taking	instr	uctions	from	the	Petitione	r, who	is	present
in	Court	today.	If	it	is so,	we direct	the	Petitioner
to	make	a	represen	tation	to the	Competent		Authority,
within	a w	eek from	the	date	of this	Order and	on	making
such	a	repre	sentation,	the	Compete	nt Autho	rity	will
take	a	decision	within	two	weeks	from the	dat	e of

¶20

receipt of such representation and pass a reasoned Order, till then, the parties to maintain status quo.

¶21

Petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶22

Parties to act on authenticated copy of this Order duly authenticated by the PA / Associate of this Court.

¶23

[Amjad A.Sayed, J] [J.N.Patel, J.]

Parshuram Devaji Patil v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshuram Devaji Patil v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Raigad and Ors.

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

Malti Ashok Vanjara Nee Malti Revaji Rajput Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. German Remedies Ltd. Now Known as Zydus Cadilla Health Care Ltd. Vs Mr. Madhukar Bhiva Panchal

Bdh Industries Ltd. and Ors. Vs United Packaging Industries

Nitin Vishwas Gadgil Vs Nishigandha Nitin Gadgil

Swastik Investment and Consultants through Proprietor Shri Ramesh Manilal Shah Vs M/S Ajay Manilal Shah through Proprietor Shri Ajay M Shah Deceases through Heirs

The State of Maharashtra Vs Mohamad R. Shaikh