Disposed

Sau. Bharti W/O Sudhir Nilgilwar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secr. Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC1 Oct 2018WP/3772/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Five-writ petitions challenged transfers separating spouses over 30 kms apart. The Court directed petitioners to represent available vacancies within a week and directed the respondent to decide within three weeks before finalizing any transfer.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioners to submit representation on available vacancies; directing CEO to decide within three weeks.

Sau. Bharti W/O Sudhir Nilgilwar Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

Order

0110wp3772.18

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3772/2018.

¶6

Sou. Bharti Sudhir Nilgilwar - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3773/2018.

¶7

Savita Yogeshwar Nagose - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3774/2018.

¶8

Viplavi Murarrao Lande - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3775/2018.

¶9

Vaishali Atmaram Deshmukh Parse - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 3776/2018.

¶11

Sharad Bhagwan Bramhe - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3777/2018.

¶12

Yogini Lalitji Dighore - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3778/2018.

¶13

Akshara Naktuji Gedam - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 3779/2018.

¶14

Soni Vasant Padmekar - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others. WRIT PETITION NO. 5628/2018.

¶15

Sharda narayan Gurle - VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others.

¶16

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

¶17

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.

¶18

DATE : OCTOBER 01, 2018.

¶19

Heard Shri V.N. Morande, learned

¶20

Counsel for petitioners, Ms. K.R. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent State and Mrs. I.L. Bodade, Shri

¶21

M.M. Sudame, and Shri Daruwala, learned Counsel for

Order

0110wp3772.18

respective Zilla Parishads. Petitioners state that husband and wife separated by distance of more than 30 kms have been given a special treatment under Government Resolution dated 27.02.2017 and according to Zilla Parishad, petitioners cannot complain about it, as validity of that Government resolution, has been upheld by this Court.

¶26

Without prejudice to these contentions, Shri Morande, learned counsel points out that there are vacancies within 30 kms, even after exercise of transfer is over. As such, instead of forcing petitioners to work at a difficult area, they be transferred to such places. He is relying upon the orders dated 06.08.2018 in Writ Petition No. 3571/2018 and other connected matters.

¶27

It is apparent that petitioners and their spouse were working within 30 kms of each other and hence, they have been now separated and others who were not so working may have been accommodated within 30 kms.

¶28

In this situation, if any vacancies are now available and petitioners are willing to join at those places, the decision will have to be taken by the

Order

0110wp3772.18

employer first.

We therefore, direct petitioners to make a representation pointing out vacancies at relevant places within a period of one week from today, if such representation is not already made. We direct the respondent Chief Executive Officer to take a decision on such representation within period of three weeks from the date of communication of this order to it.

¶34

With these directions, we dispose of the Writ Petitions. No cost.

¶35

JUDGE JUDGE

¶36

Rgd.

Sau. Bharti W/O Sudhir Nilgilwar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secr. Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept. Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sau. Bharti W/O Sudhir Nilgilwar v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secr. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rameshwar Vishnupant Umak Vs Schedule Tribe Caste Cert. Scrutiny Committee Thr. Member Secretary, Amravati and Others

Smt. Meenakshitai Arjunrao Watti and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Tribal Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Baburao S/O Panjabrao Lokhande Vs the State of Maha., Thr. Secretary, Department of Rescue and Rehabilitation, Mumbai and Others

Nusrat Yasmeen W/O Ashfaque Ansari Vs Public Information Officer, Urdu Upper Primary School, Mohd. Ali Sarai, Nagpur and Others

Sou. Sunita W/O Haribhau Sahare Vs Zilla Parishad Yavatmal, Thr. Its Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal

Soni Vasant Padmekar W/O Vinod Janardhan Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secr. Rural Development and Water Conservation Dept. Mumbai and Ors.