The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an employee's transfer from Chalisgaon to Ahmednagar. The court found no violation of a circular protecting employees retiring within two years and no discrimination, distinguishing a prior precedent as not applicable.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order vacated.
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.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 2011 CHUDAMAN DODHU JADHAV VERSUS THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS
... Advocate for Petitioner : Shri Chavan P.P. AGP for Respondent(s) 1 : Shri Suryavanshi K.M. Advocate for Respondent(s) 2 to 4 : Shri Shelke A.S.
CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 04, 2011
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Registrar’s Orders. (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 2011 Director (Commerce and I.T. Report), the energy losses of Chalisgaon division increased by 3.5. per cent which is highest increase in any division in Maharashtra The energy losses for the year 2009-10 were 21.77 per cent and in 2010-11 were 25.27 per cent. In view thereof, they have effected transfer of the petitioner.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s Orders.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
Chalisgaon. There is no reason to dis-believe the
(3) WRIT PETITION NO. 3622 OF 2011
statement made on oath by the affiant on behalf of respondents 2 to 4.
( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) akl
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of a government employee is in violation of a circular protecting those retiring within two years.
Whether the transfer was arbitrary, illegal, or discriminatory.
Whether the writ petition challenging the transfer should be dismissed.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sheshrao Nagorao Umap Vs. State of MaharashtraDistinguished¶22
Sheshrao Nagorao Umap Vs. State of Maharahstra [ Bom. C.R. 1 (1985) 30 ] · Who else cites this
CHUDAMAN DODHU JADHAV
THE STATE OF MAH
D B BHOSALE
S B DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
