Dismissed

Ramesh Laxman Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC6 Jan 2020WP/8214/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Nagpur dismissed a writ petition challenging a transfer order dated 29.08.2019, holding that the transfer complied with applicable rules and options, was not malafide, and thus required no interference.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the order of transfer from Karanja to Murtizapur is dismissed. No costs to the respondents.

Ramesh Laxman Sargar Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2020)

¶1

1 WP. 8214-19.odt

¶2

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

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8214 OF 2019

¶4

( Ramesh Laxman Sargar,

¶5

Vs.

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Urban Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors.)

¶7

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

¶8

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

¶9

Shri S.N. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
Ku. N.P. Mehta, AGP for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3
Shri P.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Respondent No.4
Shri N.R. Saboo, Advocate for the Respondent No.5

¶10

CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE & A.S. CHANDURKAR, JJ.

¶11

DATED : 06th January, 2020.

¶12

The challenge raised is to the order passed
by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal rejecting
the original application preferred by the petitioner
which was filed for challenging the order of transfer
dated 29.08.2019. By that order, petitioner has been
transferred from Karanja to Murtizapur. According to
the petitioner as the order of transfer was issued in the
month of August, it was a mid-term transfer. The
provisions of Section 4 of the Maharashtra Government
Servants Regulation Of Transfers And Prevention of
Delay In Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 had not
been complied with and hence the transfer was liable
to be interfered with. Further the respondent No.5 had
put in service of more than three years at that place

¶13

2 WP. 8214-19.odt

¶14

and he was also liable to be transferred.

¶15

2.It is seen from the impugned order that the
petitioner was transferred to Karanja on 18.11.2015.
He had completed more than six years in Washim
District and therefore in view of Government
Resolution dated 11.05.2017, he was liable to be
transferred out of the District. The Tribunal has
considered these contentions in paragraph Nos. 6 & 7
of the impugned order. It has been noted that while
giving the options on 01.07.2019, the petitioner had
opted for Murtizapur and in the next month he was
transferred there. We, therefore, do not find any
reason to interfere with the impugned order of
transfer, which is not shown to be malafide.

¶16

3. Hence, the petition is dismissed . No costs.

¶17

JUDGE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

SD. Bhimte

Ramesh Laxman Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Laxman Sargar v. the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Digambar S/O Mahadeorao Donge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Others

Ajay S/O Mahadeorao Donge Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Tribal Welfare Dept., Mumbai and Others

Sonal Rajesh Barbate Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary Dept. of Higher and Technical Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Sadashiv Sattidin Gupta Vs the Chirman, Managing Director Western Coalfields Ltd. Nagpur and Others

Samba S/O Vithu Kapate Vs Western Coal Fields Ltd., through Its General Manager, Chandrapur and 5

Raosaheb S/O Govindrao Sanap Vs Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran through Member Secretary and Others