Dismissed

Smt. Afsarbano Mohamed Khan v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane and Anr.

Bombay HC10 Sept 2014WP/6074/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismisses a writ petition challenging a transfer order of a health worker to an Adiwasi area. The court noted the petitioner had not joined the new post and had already submitted an undertaking to serve the area. Dismissing the petition, the court upheld the transfer against the backdrop of State policy.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the transfer order was upheld.

Smt. Afsarbano Mohamed Khan Vs the Chief… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

wp6074.14.sxw

¶2

1/4

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6074 OF 2014

¶5

Smt. Afsarbano Mohamed Khan ... Petitioner V/s. The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Thane & anr. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. R.M. Kolge for the petitioner. Mr. S.P. Thorat for respondents 1 and 2.

¶7

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND B.P. COLABAWALLA, JJ .

¶8

10th September, 2014.

¶9

P.C.

¶10

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶11

The petitioner challenges transfer order dated 28th May, 2014 Exhibit A. The petitioner is working as health worker (Nurse) at Kaman at Vasai. She was transferred to the PHC, Sayone of Taluka Dahanu. On behalf of petitioner it was submitted that transfer order is against the policy decision of the State as reflected in GR dated 15th May, 2014, the service conditions and G.R. dated 6th August, 2002. According to learned Counsel appearing for petitioner it is submitted that earlier the petitioner was transferred to serve in Zilla Parishad, Amravati on 8th June, 1995. The petitioner served the said Zilla Parishad for near about five years. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Zilla Parishad, Thane on 15th September, 2011. According to petitioner after serving for a period of two years and nine months at Kaman, the petitioner was transferred to the present post. The learned Counsel submitted that before completing three

¶12

wp6074.14.sxw

¶13

2/4

¶14

years tenure the petitioner could not have been transferred. The learned Counsel has referred to various documents placed on record in support of the submission that the petitioner's transfer to adivasi area would cause lot of inconvenience to the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner is not reluctant to serve in the Adivasi area but the present order has been made against the rules, guidelines by the State.

¶15

The respondent-zilla parishad filed affidavit-in-reply. Paragraphs 3 and 6 of the affidavit-in-reply read as under:

¶16

“3. The petitioner was given opportunity of being heard before the order of transfer. The Petitioner as well as other employee to whom order of transfers were expected all the said employees were given opportunity to put their submissions. Accordingly the Zilla Parishad Thane had called the Petitioner and at that time she requested to District Health Officer that it will be suitable for her if she is transferred at Dahanu at Chalani Pathak. Accordingly order was passed on 28.5.2014. Thereafter she was relieved from the said post on 31.5.2014. However the Petitioner did not take the charge at Dahanu at Chalani Pathak.

¶17

6. That pursuant to the policy laid down by the State Government Resolution dated 15.5.2014 restriction of 5 years at one post is not applicable to the employees of Zilla Parishad. On the contrary if the concerned employee has not done service in the Adiwasi area he/she can be transferred in the adiwasi area. I say that in the area of Thane Zilla Parishad Thane the Petitioner was never done her service in the adiwasi area and therefore it was obligatory on her part to go at adiwasi area.”

¶18

3/4 wp6074.14.sxw

¶19

The learned Counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad submitted that though petitioner was relieved from the post, she has not joined the transferred post since last more than four months. The learned Counsel submits that on the assurance that the petitioner will serve Adiwasi area, she was transferred from Amravti Zilla Parishad to Thane Zilla Parishad. Necessary undertakings in this regard were signed by the petitioner which are placed on record and relied upon by the learned Counsel. The specific reliance is placed on communication made by the petitioner trust to District Health Officer dated 23^rd May, 2014 annexed at exhibit D (page-85) wherein the petitioner has requested that she may be transferred to a place in Dahanu. The learned Counsel submits that as per the policy adopted by the State and in view of the observations made by the High Court, employees have to serve adiwasi area so that adiwasi population does not suffer due to lack of adequate medical facilities.

¶20

We have perused the record placed before us. The surprising aspect in the matter is that inspite of transfer order issued, the petitioner has not joined transferred place which means that the petitioner is not working with the Zilla Parishad since last 3-4 months. The learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that Chief Executive Officer would take serious note of such lapse not only in respect of the petitioner's case but in other cases wherein the employees do not join the transferred post without specific permission probably under the pretext that the issue is being litigated in the courts. The Chief Executive Officer shall call for explanation from such employees like petitioner in respect of absence from duties. In such cases the employee is entitled to resume duties under protest and subject to the orders passed by the appropriate forum where employees have approached with the grievance raised against the order passed by the employer including the orders of transfer.

¶21

4/4 wp6074.14.sxw

¶22

Turning to the facts of the case we find that application was submitted on 23rd May, 2014 addressed to District Health Officer by the petitioner stating therein that she would be willing to work in Chalani unit, Dahanu. The State had framed policy and issued certain guidelines for transferring employees. The employee is normally transferred under the rules after completion of three years period. It is natural that the transfer being incident of service, sometime causes inconvenience to employees.

¶23

During the course of hearing the Counsel appearing for Zilla Parishad submitted that administration had offered six more locations where the petitioner could be transferred. The six locations fall under the jurisdiction of Thane Zilla Parishad. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is not interested in joining at either of these locations as they are located in Adiwasi area and causes inconvenience to her.

¶24

Considering the facts in its entirety and in view of the policy adopted by the State and undertaking filed by the petitioner, we are not inclined to entertain the request made by the petitioner. There is no merit in the petition. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶25

(B.P. COLABAWALLA, J.)

¶26

(NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶27

L.S. Panjwani, P.A.

Smt. Afsarbano Mohamed Khan v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Afsarbano Mohamed Khan v. the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane and 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

Bandopant Balaso Wadkar and Ors. Vs Shri.Bhogawati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Ors.

Shri. Dattatray Ganpati Shinde Vs the Superintending Engineer, Environmental Circle and Ors.

Shri. Parshuram Gangaram Choudhari Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Devanand Bhupal Kamble Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, School Education Dept and Ors.

Baramati Taluka Sahakari Dekhrekh Sangh Maryadit, through Secretary and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Co-Operation and Textile and Ors.

Nagsen B. Pagare Vs Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. through the General Manager