Partly allowed

Prakash Bhaurao Navale v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Dept. Andor

Bombay HC10 Oct 2014WP/8917/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay partially allowed a writ petition challenging transfer orders. The Court cancelled the transfer orders, directed parties to resume duties, and mandated the State Government to decide the transfer issue afresh in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Petition partly allowed; transfer orders cancelled; parties directed to join duties; State Government directed to decide transfers afresh.

Prakash Bhaurao Navale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

vrd 1 WP8917/14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8917 OF 2014

¶5

Prakash Bhaurao Navale ...Petitioner v/s

¶6

State of Maharashtra and others

¶7

...Respondents

¶8

Mr Sandeep Dere for Petitioner. Mr C.P. Yadav, AGP for State. Mr M.S. Karnik with Ms Leena Patil for Respondent No.4. Mr C.T. Chandratre for Respondent No.5. Mr S.R. Patil, Divisional Superintending Agricultural Officer from Joint Director of Agricultural Office, Nasik present.

¶9

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

¶10

DATE : 10TH OCTOBER 2014.

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Leave to add

¶13

Mr Suresh R. Khairnar as party Respondent. The Petitioner was Respondent No.4 in Original Application No.726 of 2014 filed by

¶14

the present Respondent No.4 - Vilas Vasudeo Kolse who was transferred from Nandur Shingote to Chalisgaon. The Petitioner herein was transferred from Sinnar to Nandur Shingote. Both

¶15

vrd 2 WP8917/14

¶16

the Petitioner and the Respondent had mutually agreed and filed a representation to the State Government requesting for transfer of Petitioner from Sinnar to Nandur Shingote and Respondent No.4 herein - Vilas Vasudeo Kolse from Nandur Shingote to Sinnar. The Parties were expecting the transfer orders according to the mutually agreed proposal placed before the State. The record reveals that their proposal was recommended by a Member of Legislative Assembly. In the meanwhile, the Member of Legislative Assembly recommended another candidate - Suresh R. Khairnar, who was discharging his duties at Nashik, for transfer to Sinnar. Being aggrieved by the order of the State, Mr Vilas Kolse approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. By a judgment and order dated 17th September 2014, the Tribunal set aside the order passed by the State transferring Mr Vilas Kolse to Chalisgaon. The Petitioner herein was one of the contesting Respondent before the Tribunal. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the Petitioner has approached this Court.

¶17

On the last date, the original record was placed

¶18

vrd 3 WP8917/14

¶19

before us by the learned AGP. We perused the record. We had directed the learned AGP to take complete instructions from the concerned Secretary as to how mutual request made by the parties was partly accepted and partly rejected. The learned AGP submits that the State Government is prepared to look into the matter afresh concerning transfers of Petitioner, Respondents - Vilas Kolse and Khairnar and take appropriate decision on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law viz. under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act 2005.

¶20

WE have heard the submissions of the learned counsel

¶21

for the Petitioner, Respondent - Vilas Kolse and Mr Khairnar.

¶22

The record reveals that due to intervention, recommendation made by the Member of Legislative Assembly, the State Government had passed transfer orders. In the facts of the case, we are of the view that the State Government shall look into the case of contesting parties concerning their transfers afresh.

¶23

vrd 4 WP8917/14

¶24

In the facts of the case, the order of the Tribunal requires modification. We accordingly issue following

¶25

directions :-

¶26

(a) Petition is partly allowed.

¶27

(b) Transfer orders issued in favour of the Petitioner,

¶28

Respondent - Viklas Kolse and Mr Khair shall stand cancelled.

¶29

(c) Respondent - Vilas Kolse and Mr Khairnar are directed to join their duties at the respective places as before issuance of the transfer orders.

¶30

(d) We direct the State Government to look into the

¶31

issue and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶32

(e) If any of the contesting parties herein file an application requesting for their transfer, such application shall be looked into on its own merits and appropriate decision shall be taken.

¶33

vrd 5 WP8917/14

¶34

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in respect of the claim made by the parties for their transfers from the respective places prior to the filing of the Original Application.

¶35

The contesting parties shall join their respective posts

¶36

prior to the subject transfer orders after 15th October 2014.

¶37

Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.

¶38

Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar as true copy.

¶39

( B.P. COLABAWALLA J. ) ( NARESH H. PATIL J. )

Prakash Bhaurao Navale v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Dept. Andor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Bhaurao Navale v. the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Agricultural and Animal Husbandry Dept. Andor

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Mohan Dhotre Vs State of Maharashtra through Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Ors.

State of Maharashtra through Industries, Energy and Labour Dept. and Anr. Vs Mr. Mohan Dhotre and Ors.

Smt. Charushila Wamanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Irrigation Dept and Ors.

Bank of Maharashtra Retired Employees Welfare Organisation and Ors. Vs Bank of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Ganesh Vilasrao Patil Vs Union of India through Ministry of Railway and Ors.

Sou. Asha Raidas Bhosale.. Vs M/S Vinar Enterprises