Nilesh S/O Narendra Uplopwar vs Maha. State Power Generation Co. Ltd., (Mahagenco), Thr. Managing Director, Mumbai and Ors.

The petitioner, who is an employee of respondent No.1 – Maharashtra State Power Generation Company Limited, came to be transferred vide order dated 02.06.2025 from Chandrapur to Khaparkheda as a Medical Officer, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

¶15

The challenge is made on the ground that, as per the policy of respondent No.1 dated 20.03.2025, it is binding on the respondent Company to publish the list of employees proposed to be transferred, and whereupon, liberty is granted to the employees to seek exemption from transfer if the ward of such employee is studying in the 10^th to 12^th standard.

¶16

It is the case of the petitioner that on the date of transfer, the daughter of the petitioner was studying in the 10^th Standard and now she is studying in the 11^th Standard. It is submitted that, as per the said policy, the petitioner

¶17

917 wp 3447-2025.odt

¶18

2

¶19

cannot be transferred till his daughter completes the 12^th Standard.

¶20

It is further submitted that his son would be admitted to the 10^th Standard this year and, therefore, till the time his son completes the 12^th Standard, he shall not be transferred.

¶21

We do not find merit in the said submission for the reason that Clause 8 does not provide that no transfer shall be made in respect of an employee whose child or children is/are studying in the 10^th to 12^th Standard. It merely grants liberty to such employee to make an application seeking exemption from transfer.

¶22

Admittedly, since the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of employees proposed to be transferred, the petitioner could not make such an application prior to the transfer as contemplated under Clause 8 of the policy dated 28.03.2025. However, after the transfer, the petitioner made such an application on 17.06.2025, which is placed at page 40 of the paper book.

¶23

It is to be noted that the petitioner has completed 12 years at Chandrapur and, as per the policy, an employee can generally be retained at one place for a maximum period of 10 years. Thus, there is no doubt that the petitioner is liable to be transferred out of Chandrapur. However, except for the ground that his daughter and son are studying in the 11^th and 10^th Standard respectively, there is no other ground to seek any relief.

¶24

917 wp 3447-2025.odt

¶25

3

¶26

It is pertinent to note that despite the order dated 02.06.2025, transferring the petitioner from Chandrapur to Khaparkheda, he was not relieved till recently. Today, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 makes a statement that on 26.02.2026 the petitioner has been relieved.

¶27

Be that as it may, the application of the petitioner under Clause 8 seeking exemption from transfer on the ground that his son and daughter are studying in the 10^th and 11^th Standard is pending with respondent No.1. In the circumstances, the purpose would be served if a direction is issued to respondent No.1 to decide the said request of the petitioner.

¶28

In view of the above referred policy, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 17.06.2025 within a period of four weeks from today.

¶29

Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 undertakes to communicate this order to respondent No.1.

¶30

(RAJ D. WAKODE, J.) (ANIL S. KILOR, J.)

¶31

R.S. Sahare

¶32

Signed by: Mrs. Ranjana Sahare Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/03/2026 15:53:06

Nilesh S/O Narendra Uplopwar v. Maha. State Power Generation Co. Ltd., (Mahagenco), Thr. Managing Director, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilesh S/O Narendra Uplopwar v. Maha. State Power Generation Co. Ltd., (Mahagenco), Thr. Managing Director, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Nirbhaya Industries Pvt. Ltd., Thr. Director, Krishna Kumar S/O Bhimsen Agrawal vs Joint District Registrar NO.1 and Collector of Stamps, Bhandara

Rohan S/O Narendra Sukhdeve vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept. Mumbai and Others

Shivaji Pundlikrao Khawal vs the Tahsildar, Chandur Railway, Amravati and Another

Sau. Kshama Anil Pitade vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Director of Town Planning, State of Maharashtra, Pune and Others

Lakhan S/O Madhukar Rathod and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. the Secretary, Rural Devpt. Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others