Disposed

Ramrao Suresh Phalke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC13 Aug 2018WP/1955/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition challenged a Zilla Parishad's classification of a transfer gap as paid leave. The Court distinguished the interim period pre-notice of vacancy as paid leave and post-vacancy notice as officiating service.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 2 to 4 to treat the period from relief date till 25.10.2015 as admissible paid leave and period after 26.10.2015 as officiating period.

Ramrao Suresh Phalke Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp 1955.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1955 OF 2017

¶4

Ramrao Suresh Falke .. Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶7

Shri Hemant U. Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri A. V. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1. Shri V. D. Sonwane, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

¶8

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 13TH AUGUST, 2018.

¶9

FINAL ORDER :

¶10

. Mr. Dhage, the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was transferred from Ahmednagar district to Aurangabad district. The petitioner was relieved from Ahmednagar district on 25.06.2015. The learned counsel submits that, when he came to Aurangabad, he gave joining letter to the Zilla Parishad, however, posting was given at far away distance from the place of work of his wife. The petitioner thereafter found another similarly situated employee and applied for mutual transfer. The mutual transfer was sanctioned on 26.10.2015. The petitioner went to join the post, however, vacancy was not available. Thereafter fresh transfer order was

¶11

2 wp 1955.17

¶12

issued to the petitioner on 22.02.2016. The petitioner joined the said place on 23.02.2016, however, the period the petitioner was relieved by Ahmednager Zilla Parishad till 22.02.2016 is not counted as a joining period and is considered as a paid leave. The same is erroneous.

¶13

Mr. Sonwane, the learned advocate for the Zilla Parishad submits that, the petitioner was required to join at the transferred place. The petitioner did not join. The order of transfer itself states that, the period the petitioner was relieved till he joins will be considered as admissible paid leave. The petitioner has accepted the said order.

¶14

After the petitioner was relieved from Ahmednagar Zilla Parishad and the petitioner was issued with the posting order on 16.07.2015, the petitioner was duty bound to join that transferred place. The petitioner has taken the risk by not joining at the transferred place and the petitioner thereafter sought mutual transfer at another place. Subsequently on 26.10.2015 fresh order was issued for transfer at Borsir. It was communicated by the Head Master of the said school that there is no vacancy available. Again further order was issued on 22.02.2016.

¶15

It is not the fault of the petitioner in not joining the school at Borsir as per order dated 26.10.2015. The communication of

¶16

3 wp 1955.17

¶17

the Center Head clearly states that, there is no vacant post available to accommodate the petitioner. Thereafter fresh orders are issued only on 22.02.2016. So far the period from 26.10.2015 to 22.02.2016, the petitioner is not at fault. The said period ought to have been considered as a continuous officiation period. However, the period upto 25.10.2015 is concerned, the said period will have to be considered as an admissible paid leave, because it is the petitioner who did not join the place of the posting.

¶18

Considering the above, the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 shall treat the period from the date petitioner was relieved till 25.10.2015 as an admissible paid leave. The period after 26.10.2015 shall be considered as an officiating period. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.

¶19

[SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.] [S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.]

¶20

bsb/Aug. 18

Ramrao Suresh Phalke v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramrao Suresh Phalke 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

Chandrahans Babaji Gite and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shamkant Kashinath Patil and Another Vs the North Maharashtra University Jalgaon through Registrar and Others

Laxman Tekusing Thakur Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Kalpana Sakharam Bachkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Hanshraj Shamrao Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sunil Rangnath Balvante and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others