Dismissed

Shri. Ravindra Govind Parekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Dept Anr.

Bombay HC25 Jul 2014WP/5997/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a Jailor transferred from Pune to Nagpur, approached the Tribunal after being offered Satara. Claiming family medical reasons, he sought to remain in Pune. The High Court examined the record and found sufficient service tenure and adequate facilities at Nagpur.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no interference in the transfer matter.

Shri. Ravindra Govind Parekar Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp5997.14.sxw

¶2

1/2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5997 OF 2014

¶5

Shri Ravindra Govind Parekar ... Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. P.B.Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. P.P.Kakade, AGP for the State.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ .

¶8

25th July, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner was serving as a Jailor, Group-II, Yeravada Jail, Pune since 11th June, 2010. On the regular transfer the petitioner by order dated 30th April, 2013 was transferred to Nagpur. A representation was preferred by the petitioner to appropriate authorities. Petitioner was given choice of two places Satara and Nagpur. It is submitted that when respondents confirmed the offer of Satara posting, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. According to learned Counsel, while the petition was pending in the Tribunal, the State adopted a stand that the earlier orders are cancelled and petitioner will have to join at Nagpur.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's wife is suffering from ailment known as schizophrenia. Petitioner's daughters are

¶13

2/2 wp5997.14.sxw

¶14

studying, therefore, he may be retained in Pune. Under the interim orders passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner is still serving in Pune.

¶15

Learned AGP submits that petitioner has served now for more than four years at Pune and there is no case made out for further continuation in Pune.

¶16

We have perused the record, considered the submissions advanced. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petitioner has completed near about four years service at Pune. Appropriate medical facilities are available at Nagpur including the education facilities.

¶17

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference is warranted. under extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶18

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶19

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶20

L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

Shri. Ravindra Govind Parekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Dept Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ravindra Govind Parekar v. the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Home Dept Anr.

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

Proposed Annex Mall Co-Operative Premises Society Ltd, through Chief Promoter, Mr. Suresh Shetty Vs the Dy.Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, Mumbai and Anr.

Subhash Motiram Meshram Vs Maharashtra State Seeds Corporation Limited and Ors.

Shri. Swanand Balkrishna Kulkarni Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra, through Additional Chief Secretary, Public Health Dept and Ors. Vs Dr. Arvind Krishnaji Jadhav and Ors.

Prakash Dashrath Gude Vs Director of Fisheries, Maharashtra State and Ors.