Allowed

Narendra S/O Ramchandra Butke v. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal through, Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal and Another

Bombay HC12 Jan 2018WP/4642/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a transfer order of an employee serving as an elected President of an Employees' Association. The Court quashed the impugned order and directed the employer to reconsider the claim for an extended tenure based on relevant policy decisions within two months, pending final approval or recognition of the association.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 05.08.2016 quashed; petitioner directed to withdraw Industrial Court complaint within two weeks; respondent directed to reconsider claim for extended tenure within two months.

Narendra S/O Ramchandra Butke Vs Zilla Parishad… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

1201wp4642.16

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4642 OF 2016

¶5

(Narendra s/o Ramchandra Butke vs. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal thr. its CEO & Anr.) AND

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 2947 OF 2017

¶7

(Narendra s/o Ramchandra Butke vs. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal thr. its CEO & Anr.)

¶8

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

¶9

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & MRS. SWAPNA JOSHI, JJ. JANUARY 12, 2018.

¶10

Heard Shri N.S. Khubalkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri R.D. Bhuibhar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri S.A. Ashirgade, learned Additional GP for respondent No. 2.

¶11

The petitioner claims to be a President of a duly approved Employees' Association in the employment of respondent No. 1. He has challenged the order of transfer dated 05.08.2016 transferring him from Public Works Division No. 1 Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal to Panchayat Samiti, Moregaon.

¶12

The submission is, as per policy decision regulating transfers, the petitioner can continue for a period of additional five years after his election as President of such association. This Court on 09.08.2016 directed parties to maintain status quo while issuing notice.

¶13

As this order was not properly implemented or recognized, the petitioner made fresh grievance in Writ

¶14

¶15

1201wp4642.16

¶16

Petition No. 2947 of 2017. In that petition, on 16.05.2017, the Court clarified that the petitioner cannot be compelled to join at transferred place. Because of this clarification and order dated 09.08.2016 mentioned supra, the petitioner continues at Yavatmal only.

¶17

In this backdrop, we heard the learned counsel for the parties. We find that the petitioner is continuing at Yavatmal since 2003. He, therefore, completed normal tenure of 10 years somewhere in the year 2013. As he has been elected as President of Employees' Association in June 2012 for a period of 5 years, he has been given five years more in that capacity after his election and the said period expired in June 2017. However, the petitioner claims that he has been re-elected as President and that tenure is yet to expire.

¶18

A perusal of Chapter V of Policy decision (A)(4) shows normal tenure of 10 years plus extension of five years in such contingency. Thus, for office bearers like the petitioner, the maximum possible tenure is 15 years. This tenure is also due to expire in this year i.e. in 2018.

¶19

Shri Bhuibhar, learned counsel has, however, submitted that this concession is available only to the President of the Employees' Association which is approved by the State Government. He submits that Employees' Association represented by the petitioner is not so recognized. He is relying upon the reply affidavit filed in

¶20

¶21

1201wp4642.16

¶22

this respect by the State Government along with list of Unions/ Associations.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a Circular dated 03.01.1989 issued by the Rural Development Department at Annexure P-5. In that annexure name of the Employees' Association represented by the petitioner figures.

¶24

In present jurisdiction, it is not necessary for us to go into correctness or otherwise of this position. If respondent No. 1 – employer has already given that concession to the petitioner or then has declined it, due application of mind by it would reveal that it has looked into that claim and found association either to be duly approved or not approved. There is no such disclosure on record.

¶25

Hence, in present matter when the interim orders are operating since 09.08.2016 and impugned order is also about 18 months old, we find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent No. 1 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in terms of policy and thereafter to take fresh decision as per law. Such decision shall be taken within a period of two months after the communication of order of this Court.

¶26

With these directions and keeping all rival contentions open, impugned order dated 05.08.2016 is

¶27

¶28

1201wp4642.16

¶29

quashed and set aside. Consequently, Writ Petition No. 4642 of 2016 is allowed and disposed of. Because of this, Writ Petition No. 2947 of 2017 is disposed of as infructuous. No order as to costs.

¶30

At this stage, it is pointed out to us that the petitioner had also approached Industrial Court, Yavatmal, against transfer order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instructions were already issued to withdraw that complaint. If the complaint is not already disposed of, we direct the petitioner to withdraw it forthwith. If it is not withdrawn within two weeks from today, the judgment delivered by this Court shall not come into force.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

JUDGE

¶33

*GS.

Narendra S/O Ramchandra Butke v. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal through, Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra S/O Ramchandra Butke v. Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal through, Chief Executive Officer, Yavatmal and Another

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

Sunil S/O Pandhari Awchar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Others

M/S. J P Electrical Enterprises Chandrapur, Prop. Smt. Priyavanda Wd/O Rakesh Roshan Singh Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Mumbai and Another

Jai Prakash Rajbali Singh, Prop. A.J. Construction Vs the Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd. Mumbai and Another

Mahesh S/O. Puranlal Raut Vs State of Maharashtra, Dept. of School Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Others

Swami Vivekanand Shikshan Sanstha, Washim Thr. Presi. Dr. Ishwarchand S/O Sualal Hurkat and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Welfare Dept. Mumbai and Others

Gajanan Laxman Marotkar Vs the Divisional Caste Certificate Scrutiny Commitee NO.1 Amravati Division Amravati