Disposed

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC2 Jul 2018WP/2902/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court did not decide on the merits of the petitioner's claim of malafide transfer. It extended the interim stay, directed the Principal Secretary to decide the grievance within four weeks, and disposed of the writ petition keeping rival contentions open.

What did the court decide?

Continued interim stay for six weeks; directed Principal Secretary to dispose grievance within four weeks.

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane Vs State of Maharashtra… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

Order

0207wp2902.18

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2902/2018.

¶6

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane - VERSUS-

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others.

¶8

Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶9

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND Z.A. HAQ, JJ.

¶10

DATE : JULY 02, 2018.

¶11

Heard Shri R.S. Khobragade, learned

¶12

Counsel for the petitioner, Shri N.R. Patil, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri R. Tajne, learned Counsel for respondent no.3 and Shri J.R. Kidlay, learned Counsel for respondent no.4.

¶13

Petitioner appointed on contract basis for 11 months as District Mission Manager, has been transferred from Yavatmal to Dhule by order dated 05.05.2018. This Court has on 15.05.2018, stayed that order.

¶14

Submission of learned counsel for

Order

0207wp2902.18

petitioner is, transfer is malafide and on account of action initiated by the petitioner against respondent no.4. It is claimed that there were several complaints against respondent no.4, and hence, petitioner issued a show cause notice to him.

¶19

Learned counsel appearing for respective respondents oppose the contention. They invite attention to the history to show that even in past, performance of petitioner was not upto the mark and therefore, she was served with notices.

¶20

Learned A.G.P. has invited our attention to Clause No.34 of the Terms and Conditions of Service of petitioner. He points out that as per Clause 19 therein, petitioner can be transferred and any dispute needs to be referred to and decided by the Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj.

¶21

Petitioner has alleged malafides and attempted to connect her transfer with show cause notice served by her on respondent no.4. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 in their reply affidavit have denied knowledge of that show cause notice. Facts show that because of transfer of petitioner out of Yavatmal, respondent no.4 is being made incharge as District

Order

0207wp2902.18

Mission Manager.

In this situation, we are not inclined to observe anything more on the merits of the controversy.

¶27

We continue the interim orders already operating in the matter for a period of 6 weeks, and direct Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department (respondent no.3), to take appropriate decision on the grievance made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.

¶28

With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, we dispose of the present Writ Petition. No costs.

¶29

JUDGE JUDGE

¶30

Rgd.

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guddi Krishnakumar Ujawane v. State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Ministry of Rural Development, 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

Hindustansecurity and Inteligence Service ,Thr.Its Manager Prqvin S/O Ramchandra Gulhane Vs the Assistant Labour Commissioner/Presiding Officer and Another

Ganesh Pralhad Gaikwad Vs the Director, Directorate of Municipal Administration, Mumbai and 2 Others

Yuva Jagruti Seva Sahakari Sanstha through Its Secretary Ajaykumar Subhashrao Hiwanj Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Employment and Self Employment Dept. Mumbai and Other

Ms. Akanksha D/O Vinod Nitnaware Vs the State of Maharashtra, Dept. of Medical Education and Drugs, Mumbai Thr. Its Secretary and Other

Agrawal Bichhayat Kendra, Nagpur through Its Proprietor, Nirmaladevi Omprakash Agrawal Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Public Works, Mumbai and Others

Ku. Dnyaneshwari D/O Chaitram Dhote Vs State of Maha. Thr. Its Secretary, Rural Development and Water Resources Dept. Mumbai and Others