Disposed

Subhash Tamma Arage v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Industries and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2012WP/206/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a person with locomotor disability, challenged his transfer from Sangli to Kolhapur under Article 226. The Court observed he should be considered for recall during annual transfers and directed authorities to consider fresh representations within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to consider petitioner's case for transfer back to Sangli during Summer-2012 annual transfers; three-month timeline for reviewing fresh representations.

Subhash Tamma Arage Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 WP.206.2012

¶2

mst

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.206 OF 2012

¶5

Subhash Tamma Arage Petitioner versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others Respondents

¶7

Mr.Ashok Khillare for petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Prashant Chavan i/by Navdeep Vora Associates for respondent nos.2 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND RANJIT MORE, J.

¶10

DATE : February 22, 2012

¶11

PC :

¶12

The petitioner herein is a person with Locomotor Disability of more than 40% afflicted by Polio. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged his transfer from Sangli to Kolhapur.

¶13

Since the transfer order was issued on May 30, 2009, it is obvious that the petitioner has already completed two years and almost nine months at Kolhapur. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of things that the petitioner's case may be considered for being brought back to Sangli at the time of passing annual transfer orders in Summer-2012.

¶14

2 WP.206.2012

¶15

We are making above observations in view of the fact that according to the respondents, the petitioner was transferred from Sangli to Kolhapur on administrative grounds, as more particularly the petitioner had completed eight years at Sangli and a decision was taken in 2009 to transfer all those employees who had completed five years at one station.

¶16

The petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's case for transfer to Sangli from Kolhapur in this Summer.

¶17

The above direction takes care of prayer clause (b). As far as prayers (c) to (e) are concerned, it will be open to the petitioner to make fresh representation/s to the concerned authorities and if such representation/s is made within one month from today, the respondents shall consider the same within three months from the date of receipt of such representation.

¶18

Parties to the petition to act on an ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by Registry.

¶19

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶20

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Subhash Tamma Arage v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Industries and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Tamma Arage v. the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Industries 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

Bajirao Sakharam Kurade Vs the State of Maharashtra

Asif Ebrahim Shaikh and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sandeep Motiram Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Subhash Tamma Arage Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Industries and Ors.

Bombay Environmetal Action Group Aand Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors. and S.H. Developers Pvt.Ltd. - Applicants

Bengal Mill Stores Private Ltd. Vs Jayesh C. Doshi and 4 Ors.