Remanded

Mohini Shardanand Prasad v. Mahanagar Tlelephone Nigam Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC12 Jun 2007WP/988/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied interference with a service transfer order deemed arbitrary but not mala fide. The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file a representation regarding unpaid salary and office harassment, directing the respondent authority to consider it and pass appropriate orders within a stipulated timeframe.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file representation regarding unpaid salary and harassment; directed respondent authority to consider and pass appropriate orders within 2 weeks; dismissed otherwise.

Mohini Shardanand Prasad Vs Mahanagar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

-1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

ORDINARY ORIGINAL SIDE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.988 OF 2007

¶5

Mohini Shardanand Prasad ..Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd and ors

¶8

..Respondents

¶9

Petitioner in person present Mr Prashant Sutar i/b S I Shah & Co for respondents

¶10

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J., & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶11

Dated: 12^th June 2007

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

Heard the petitioner who appears in person and the learned counsel for the respondents. While arguing the matter the learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a copy of communication dated 11.6.2007 stating that no salary is due to the petitioner and all pay and allowances have been cleared upto date. The copy of the said communication has been handed over to the petitioner in court today.

¶14

The petitioner submits that she has not been paid her salary for the months of September and October 2006. She further states that she has been harassed in her office and the order of transfer is

¶15

-2-

¶16

arbitrary.

¶17

The order of transfer shows that the petitioner has been transferred in the same building but in a different section. The transfer is essentially an incidence of service and the court would not interfere with any order of transfer unless and until the same was ex-facie arbitrary coupled with an element of mala fide. We are of the considered view that the order of transfer calls for no interference by this court and in any case at this stage.

¶18

However, the petitioner is hereby granted liberty to file representation to the respondents within one week from today stating what salary has not been paid to her despite communication dated 11.6.2007. Her request shall be considered by the competent authority and appropriate order shall be passed and communicated to the petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter. Her grievance of harassment in the office shall also be looked into by the competent authority. We direct the General Manager to pass appropriate order, despite the fact as to who is the disciplinary authority, in the case of the petitioner. The petitioner, at this stage, states that she has already submitted a detailed representation to the General Manager alongwith the documents annexed, which, we direct the General Manager (West

¶19

-3-

¶20

Zone) to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶21

The petitioner will join her duties today at 2 p.m. at the transferred post. Respondent No.4 Mr.G.K.Kulkarni, who is present in court assured the court that the petitioner will be posted in a section where other female members are working.

¶22

Petition is disposed of with the above directions. Copy of this order be given to the petitioner who appears in person.

¶23

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Mohini Shardanand Prasad v. Mahanagar Tlelephone Nigam Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohini Shardanand Prasad v. Mahanagar Tlelephone Nigam Ltd. and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Azmat Abdulla Dayanji Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharavi Azad Nagar Janta Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Vikas Ajay Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Dilip Dattaram Agre Vs Manager, Mumbai Development Depertment Chawls B.D.D. Chawls Mumbai and 4 Ors.

Nariman Bhavan Premises Co-Operative Soceity Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Intercon Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai