Allowed

Shri. Popat Shankar Hakke v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Aug 2017WP/8273/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single bench of the Bombay High Court disposed of three consolidated writ petitions concerning government employee transfers. Relying on a previous decision with similar facts and law, the court held that the petitions were to be granted on identical lines without detailed reasoning.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were disposed of on similar lines to the decision in Shri Bharat Shejal v. State of Maharashtra; Rule made absolute.

Shri. Popat Shankar Hakke Vs the State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

dgm 1 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 8273 OF 2017

¶5

Shri Popat Shankar Hakke vs

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors.

.... Petitioner

.... Respondents

ALONG WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 8274 OF 2017

¶11

Shri Mahadeo Yashwant Kolekar .... Petitioner

¶12

¶13

The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors.

¶14

.... Respondents

¶15

AND ALONG WITH

¶16

WRIT PETITION NO. 8275 OF 2017

¶17

Shri Pandurang Pundlik Pingle .... Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and ors. .... Respondents

¶18

Mr. Sagar A. Mane i/by Mr. Mandar G. Bagkar for the petitioner in WP/8273/2017.

¶19

Mr. Sagar A. Mane for the Petitioner in WP/8274/17 and WP/8275/17. Mr. C.P. Yadav, AGP for Respondent No.1/State. Mr. Ramkrushna Yedave i/by Mr. Vijay Killedar for respondent No.2 in all matters.

¶20

1/3

¶21

dgm 2 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw

¶22

CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA AND SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ.

¶23

DATE : August 21, 2017

¶24

FINAL ORDER :

¶25

1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by

¶26

consent.

¶27

2 The learned counsel for the Petitioners make statement that in view of the decision in Writ Petition No.6438/2017- Shri Bharat Raosaheb Shejal v. The State of Maharashtra dated 13.07.2017, as their case is governed on same facts as well as on law, therefore, similar order can be passed in favour of the Petitioners.

¶28

3 The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 – Zilla Parishads, on instructions and after going through the order/judgment, concede to the position that this order/judgment covers the Petitioners' case in every aspect. The statement is made that in other matters they have already acted upon the direction so given in the case of Shri Bharat Shejal (supra). The similar order will be passed in these Petitions in favour of the Petitioners.

¶29

2/3

¶30

dgm 3 26-wp-8273-17 with 8274, 8275.sxw

¶31

4 The statement is made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.8274/17 and 8275/17 that reason for seeking transfer is the Petitioners having old age parents and the reason for seeking transfer in Writ Petition No.8273/17 is that his wife is an employee of Zilla Parishad.

¶32

5 Considering the statement so made by the learned counsel for the Respondents and the reason so given in the order/judgment in Shri Bharat Shejal (supra) , we are inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petitions on similar lines in terms of prayer (b).

¶33

6 Rule made absolute accordingly.

¶34

7 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

(BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)

¶36

3/3

Shri. Popat Shankar Hakke v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Popat Shankar Hakke v. the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G R Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs ONGC Ltd. and Anr.

Shree Akash Sunil Rajput Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Ruchi Amrish Lalwani (Jain) Vs State Bank of India through Its Chief Manager and Ors.

Shri. Pandurang Pundlik Pingle Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Tushar Vilas Thakur Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Mahadeo Yashwant Kolekar Vs the State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary and Ors.