Writ petition dismissed. Court distinguished Apex Court judgment as deal was with transfer to a different post of nature, while impugned order merely gave additional charge of a rural area with same duties and pay.
Writ petition dismissed.
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 NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8446 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr. Harshad H. Padalkar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.Y. Patil, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. H.K. Munde, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ.
DATE :- 20th JANUARY , 2012.
PER COURT :-
1] It is the contention of the petitioner that a person junior to him has been transferred to a promotional post. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of " Vice Chancellor , L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha" reported in (1986) 3 SCC 7, in support of the submission that merely because both the posts carry same pay, cannot be said to be equivalent posts.
2] Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that it is a case of only giving charge of a rural area. No additional salary or any pecuniary benefits are given to the person who has been given the additional charge. In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner is concerned, the same was concerning a transfer of a person who was working as a Principal to the post of Reader. In the present
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 8446 OF 2011
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
2
case, it can be seen that the petitioner as well as the person who is transferred would continue to perform the same duties that of Fireman. Only distinction would be the area in which they would perform their duties. In that view of the matter. the ratio in the said judgment would not be of any assistance to the case of the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
grt/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of a petitioner to give charge of a rural area with same pay and duties amounts to a promotional post equivalent to another.
Whether the ratio in Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha applies to a distinction based on area of duty.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand JhaDistinguished¶10
Vice Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University Vs. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7 · Who else cites this
Petitioner
Respondent No. 1
Respondent No. 2
Respondent No. 3
B.R. Gavai
M.T. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
