Disposed

Panjab Uttamrao Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC8 Aug 2017WP/10039/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this transfer petition, the petitioner, an assistant teacher, complained of a transfer violating policy and age-related benefits. As his representation regarding the transfer was pending consideration by the authorities, the court directed the competent authority to examine the representation and take a decision within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to competent authority to examine the pending representation and take appropriate decision within three weeks.

Panjab Uttamrao Khedkar Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp10039.17

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10039 OF 2017

¶5

Panjab s/o Uttamrao Khedkar, Age: 53 years, Occu: Service as Asst. Teacher, R/o. C/o. Z.P. School, Puyana, Tq. Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli

¶6

..PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32

¶9

The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Hingoli

¶11

The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Kalamnuri, Dist. Hingoli ..RESPONDENTS

¶13

Mr Balaji S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner; Mr A.R. Kale, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 & 2

¶14

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 8^th August, 2017

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner claims that he has been transferred from Zilla Parishad, Hingoli to Zilla Parishad, Amravati, contrary to the transfer policy.

¶18

(2)

¶19

According to him, he has completed 53 years of age immediately after the transfer order was passed, but during this academic season for which the transfer order has been passed he is required to be treated above 54 years and is entitled to benefit of the transfer policy to that effect. It is also the case of the petitioner that he has a daughter studying in Engineering course as also he has taken a loan from Teachers Credit Co-operative Society at Hingoli. The grievance of the petitioner is that in regard to the aforesaid he had submitted a representation on 14^th July, 2017, but till date the same has not been considered and no decision on it has been taken.

¶20

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner's representation against the impugned order is pending, we dispose of this petition by directing the competent authority of the respondents to examine the petitioner's representation and take appropriate decision on it in accordance with the transfer policy and the relevant Government Resolution.

¶21

The decision be taken within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶22

It is open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation with supporting documents within a week from today.

¶23

With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of.

¶24

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

¶25

amj

Panjab Uttamrao Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Panjab Uttamrao Khedkar v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Shankar Narsinh Dange Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sambhaji Bhanudas Surve Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ashok Laxmanrao Dake Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Pitambar Digambar Chaudhari and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramji Dhanji Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Vasant Shrirangrao Kendre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others