Petitioner challenged a transfer order claimed to be punitive for revolt. Petitioner contended a subsequent order posted him in Nagpur, not the transferred station. High Court noted pending proceedings before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
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.
wp745.13
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION No.745/2013
Niranjan Nandlal Rathod ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. its Secretary and ors.
_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.
______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Alok Upasni, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.G.P. for respondents-State
CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ.
DATED : APRIL 25, 2013.
Heard.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal on 18.01.2013
refused to stay transfer order in Original Application No. 35/2013. Review was also rejected on 01.02.2013 and thereafter the petitioner approached this Court. This Court, on 08.02.2013 noted contentions that on 09.01.2013, that petitioner was transferred on deputation at Nagpur itself and hence the impugned order of transfer dated 04.01.2013 ceased to be in force. Because of these contentions, status quo was ordered.
Mr.Upasni, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was transferred from Nagpur to Dound by order dated 04.01.2013 and he was relived thereafter. But before that, on
wp745.13
(2)
09.01.2013, he was given posting on deputation at Nonfunctional Operational Training Centre at Nagpur itself. After this order dated 09.01.2013, the petitioner was relieved on 10.01.2013. According to him, in this situation, the petitioner should have been permitted to join at Nagpur itself. There is no question of petitioner reporting at Dound.
He has also invited our attention to the reply affidavit and the stand therein that the transfer has been ordered because of his participation in revolt, which took place on 26.10.2012. According to him, the petitioner was on sick leave from 13.10.2012 to 01.11.2012 and has not participated in any revolt.
Learned A.G.P. for respondents-State submitted that the order dated 09.01.2013 was cancelled on 10.01.2013 and the petitioner was relived for joining at Dound. Though, this order of status quo was passed on 08.02.2013, as the petitioner was already relieved, he is not working at Nagpur. He places reliance upon the reply affidavit to show the incident of revolt dated 26.10.2012. He further submitted that the story of sick leave has been pressed into service for the first time in the rejoinder before this Court.
Perusal of the rejoinder dated 20.04.2013 reveals that the petitioner has, by a communication annexed therewith,
wp745.13
(3)
demanded sickness-certificate for the period from 13.10.2012 to 01.11.2012. This demand is undated. Whereabouts of the petitioner during this period are not disclosed, copy of the application for sick leave or dates on which the sick leave was sought are not shown or produced. The learned counsel for the petitioner, further stated that the petitioner had met with an accident and, therefore, was required to proceed on sick leave. The alleged accident has also not been disclosed in the rejoinder.
The matter is already pending before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. In this situation, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. We accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. No order as to costs.
Needless to mention that the interim order granted on 08.02.2013 stands vacated.
JUDGE JUDGE
kahale
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere in a transfer dispute that is already pending before the Administration Tribunal.
Niranjan Nandlal Rathod
State of Maharashtra
B. P. DHARMADHIKARI
A.B. CHAUDHARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
