Allowed

Shri. Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and Others v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018WP/3130/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed multiple writ petitions challenging orders cancelling transfers of Zilla Parishad employees. Relying on a previous decision granted to similarly situated applicants, the court quashed the impugned transfer cancellation orders, reserved the question of salary arrears.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 21.4.2017 and 3.5.2017 cancelling transfers are quashed; respondents directed to take appropriate action against petitioners in accordance with law.

Shri. Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

1 wp3130.17+4.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.3130 OF 2017

¶4

[Shri Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others]

¶5

with

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3129 OF 2017

¶7

[Ku. Priti Tulshidas Koche and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others] with

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.3138 OF 2017

¶9

[Shri Shuddhodhan Prabhuji Borkar and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others] with

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.3140 OF 2017

¶11

[Smt. Devlabai Dashrath Girhepunje and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others] with

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO.3145 OF 2017

¶13

[Shri Dudhram Harichand Thomre and others .vs. State of Maharashtra and others]

¶14

¶15

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶16

Court's or Judge's orders

¶17

- - - - Shri Vaidya, counsel h/f Shri A. Parchure, counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. K.S. Joshi, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3, Shri H.N. Verma, counsel for respondent no.2 & other Zilla Parishads, Shri P.D. Meghe, counsel for respondent no.9, Shri A.Y. Kapgate, counsel for respondent no.10.

¶18

CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ.

¶19

DATED : APRIL 03, 2018.

¶20

Since the issue involved in these writ petitions is identical and similar prayers are made therein, they are heard together and are decided by this common order.

¶21

By these writ petitions, the petitioners, who are working in different Zilla Parishads, have challenged the order of the Zilla Parishads cancelling the order of their transfer, dated 23.11.2016 transferring them from the respective Zilla Parishads, where they were working. The petitioners have also challenged the order/report of the Divisional Commissioner, dated 21.4.2017 cancelling the transfers of the petitioners from the respective Zilla Parishads.

¶22

2 wp3130.17+4.odt

¶23

It is stated on behalf of the parties that the issue involved in these writ petitions was also involved in a bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition no.3065/2017 and others and this court has, by the order dated 31.7.2017, allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed and set aside the impugned orders dated 21.4.2017 and 3.5.2017. It is stated that a similar order could be passed in these writ petitions, on parity.

¶24

We have perused the order dated 31.7.2017 in the bunch of writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No.3065/2017 and we find that the issue involved in those cases is similar to the issue involved in these writ petitions. It would be necessary to pass a similar order in these writ petitions, on parity.

¶25

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid and also for the reasons recorded in the order, dated 31.7.2017 in Writ Petition No.3065/2017 and others, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders dated 21.4.2017 and 3.5.2017 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are free to take appropriate action against the petitioners in accordance with law. Order accordingly. No costs. The issue pertaining to the non payment of salary of the petitioners for two months is kept open.

¶26

JUDGE

¶27

JUDGE

¶28

Gulande

Shri. Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and Others v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Kakaji Narayan Ramteke and Others v. State of Maha. Thr. Secretary, Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept., Mumbai and Others

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

Parmeshwar S/O Kisan Pise Vs State of Mah. through Police Station Officer, Ps. Khamgaon and Another

Parasnath S/O Laxman Dubey Vs State of Mah. through Police Station, Durgapur and Others

Smt. Sunita W/O Girish Sonone Vs Girish Panjabrao Sonone

Shaikh Jaeed Shaikh Ajamatulla Vs Divisional Caste Cert. Scrutiny Commi., Nagpur Div. Commi. No. 2, Chandrapur Thr. Chairman, and Ors.

Raju Datta Pawar (in Jail) Vs State of Maharashtra Thr. Secretary of Home Department Mantralaya Mumbai and Others

Shah Ayyaz Ali Hamid Ali Vs the Divisonal Caste Scrutiny Committee No 2 Akola Thr Its President, Collector Office Premises