Disposed

Swapnali Vitthalrao Shinde (Babar) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Rural Development Dept. and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Nov 2023WP/10729/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a feeding mother-teacher, sought directions under Article 226 for posting within 30 km of her husband under Couple Convenience Policy. The Court directed the school authority to expedite the pending representation within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent No.3 to consider the Petitioner's representation dated 10th February 2023 and decide within six weeks.

Swapnali Vitthalrao Shinde (Babar) Vs the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

501-WP-10729-2023.doc

¶2

Sayyed

¶3

2023:BHC-AS:33885-DB

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.10729 OF 2023

¶6

Swapnali Vitthalrao Shinde (Babar) ...Petitioner Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr. Balaji Shinde for the Petitioner.

¶10

Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for Respondent No.1 (State).

¶11

¶12

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI,

¶13

JITENDRA JAIN, J.J.

¶14

Date : 4th NOVEMBER, 2023.

¶15

P.C.

¶16

. Not on board, taken on production board.

¶17

This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeks direction against Respondents not to transfer the Petitioner beyond 30 km. from working place of her husband as per Couple Convenience Policy.

¶18

The Petitioner is working as Assistant Teacher with Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg and her husband is working at Kankawali which is at a distance of 90 km. The Petitioner is a feeding mother and has a daughter who is 1 year and 8 months old. The Petitioner relied upon Couple Convenience Policy issued by the Government which states that

¶19

1 of 2

¶20

501-WP-10729-2023.doc

¶21

Sayyed

¶22

the couple should be given posting within 30 km. from each other and feeding mother be accommodated in a school convenient to her. The Petitioner has made representation dated 10th February 2023 in this regard to Zilla Parishad, Sindhudurg which is at page 51 of the present petition and the representation is pending as on today.

¶23

The Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served, despite which they are not represented. However, considering nature of the order being passed by us, no prejudice would be caused to these Respondents.

¶24

We direct Respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the Petitioner made vide letter dated 10th February 2023 and take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of 6 weeks from today.

¶25

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶26

Writ Petitions is disposed of in above terms. No order as to

¶27

costs.

¶28

[JITENDRA JAIN, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]

¶29

2 of 2

Swapnali Vitthalrao Shinde (Babar) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Rural Development Dept. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swapnali Vitthalrao Shinde (Babar) v. the State of Maharashtra Thr the Secretary Rural Development Dept. and Ors.

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

Imagica World Entertainment Limited Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Dr. S. D. Nikam Vs Gokhale Education Society Educational Trust and Ors.

Pandurang Shrirang Mohite and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thru Secretary, Gen. Administration Dept. and Ors.

Prashant Harishchandra Waghmode and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Dept. of Education and Sports and Ors.

Yashwant Maryappa Dorkar Vs Joint Director, Vocational Education and Training and Ors.

Mrs. Tanuja U. Kaup Vs the Registrar Dr. Vandana Sharma