Dismissed

Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar v. the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC12 Jan 2018MCA/1159/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected a review application filed by the original petitioner against an order dismissing his writ petition. The bench held no case was made out for intervention against the transfer order, emphasizing that fresh consideration of the whole controversy is not allowed in review jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed; no costs.

Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

..1..

¶2

IN THE COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1159/2017 IN

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3493/2017

¶4

(Pramod Yadavrao Sirsikar vs. The Chairman, LIC of India and others) ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders

¶5

Mr.S.P. Kshirsagar, Adv.for applicant/petitioner Mr. P.N. Kothari,Adv.for respondents 1,2 and 3

¶6

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & ARUN D.UPADHYE , JJ. DATED : 12^th January, 2018.

¶7

B ecause of contention that Clauses 7 and 9 in the Circular dated 22.10.2016 regulating transfers were overlooked, we issued notice. Accordingly, review applicant (original petitioner) has filed his written note of arguments. We have heard arguments of respondents orally and thereafter orally of the counsel for review applicant.

¶8

Clause 7 is about transfer to Marketing side. In order passed by us disposing of the Writ Petition, we have looked into Clause 13. There is no inconsistency between the two provisions.

¶9

Clause 9 contains grievance redressal mechanism. The grievance of petitioner was already looked into by respondents and accordingly a decision dated 8.8.2017 thereupon, was placed before this Court in Writ Petition as part of written submission.

¶10

Various instances of transfers are relied upon to urge how

¶11

..2..

¶12

the transfer rules have been or transfer policy has been implemented.

¶13

The previous orders of transfer, again, do not support submission being advanced before us.

¶14

We have taken note of a 2015 order by which the petitioner was transferred on Marketing side and he never objected to it.

¶15

During reply arguments, contention raised is, petitioner sought request transfer and he had opted for Nagpur or other three places in vicinity. He did not opt for Chandrapur.

¶16

The order of transfer impugned by petitioner in Writ Petition mentions that transfer of petitioner is on request. However, the policy decision expressly stipulates that in case transfer is not possible transfer is to be treated as an administrative transfer.

¶17

In this situation, we do not find any case made out warranting intervention in review jurisdiction.

¶18

We also wish to place on record that there cannot be fresh consideration of entire controversy again, in review jurisdiction. Hence rejected. No costs.

¶19

JUDGEJUDGE

¶20

sahare

Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar v. the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod S/O Yadavrao Sirsikar v. the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mumbai 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

Shri Nitin Rajkumar Mashidkar and Another Vs the Union of India, Represented Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi and Others

Samiksha D/O Raju Dhole and Another Vs Union of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Director Gen. Health Service and Ors.

Divisional Manager, Central Bank of India, a Nationalized Bank Akola Vs Rameshkumar S/O. Harkishanji Sharma (Dead) through Lrs. Sanjaykumar S/O Harikishanji Sharma and Ors.

Jairaj S/O Pralhadsingh Gahalod Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Another

Dr. Dashrath Baliram Jadhao Vs State of Mah. Thr. Secy.Higher and Technical Educn. Mantralaya, Mumbai

Ramdas S/O Kisanrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary Dept. of Food Civil Supplies Consumer Mumbai and Another