Back
2010 Supreme(Bom) 91
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KHANWILKAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE
Vyankatrao S/o Ghalappa Savle
Versus
The Zilla Parishad, Nanded Through it’s Chief Officer & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 4959 OF 2009
Decided on : 19-01-2010
For the Petitioner:R.R. Mantri, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 & R2 V.S. Panpatte, Advocate.
Headnote:Zilla Parishad - Classes 3 and 4 - Employees Inter District Transfer Rules - Rules of Transfer - Government Resolution dated 27.5.2009 - Petitioner/teacher, transferred 150 kms. away from residence - His wife also a teacher in primary school - Petitioner challenging transfer order issued by respondent-2 - Held - Relevant Rules for transfer followed by respondent-2 - Transferred petitioner - Impugned order of transfer well within relevant Transfer Rules - Cannot be said to be with mala fide intentions - Warrants no interference - Petition dismissed. - The perusal of para No. 3 of the affidavit in reply would clearly show that the respondent No. 2 has scrupulously followed the relevant Rules for transfer of Class-III and Class IV employees under Zilla Parishad. The respondent No. 2 has considered the proposal of petitioner and respondent No. 3 and as stated in para No. 3 of the affidavit in reply, transferred the respondent No. 3 at Mutnyal and the present petitioner at Kesrali. Therefore, it clearly appears that, the respondent No. 2 Block Development Officer, has transferred the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 after following the relevant rules for transfer of Class III and Class IV employees under Zilla Parishad and issued transfer orders. Perusal of para No. 4 of the affidavit in reply would clearly show that, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have properly followed the instructions laid down in relevant Government Resolution and relevant Rules of transfers, and then only petitioner is transferred to Kesrali. The order of transfer of petitioner from Biloli to Kesrali is well within the prescribed Rules. The respondent No. 2 has taken full care that, the petitioner should be transferred and posted at place which is below 3 Kms. from Degloor.
Therefore, viewed from any angle, in Courts opinion the impugned transfer order issued by the respondent No. 2 is well within the relevant Transfer Rules and the same cannot be said to be with mala fide intentions or for extraneous consideration.
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. Heard. Learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
2. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that, he came to be appointed on 03-03-1992 as primary teacher with respondent No. 1. The wife of the Petitioner is employed as primary teacher with Anuja Bhosle, Primary School, at Degloor.
In the month of June 2008, respondent No.1, contrary to Rules, posted petitioner 150 Kms. away from residence at Degloor. As per the Zilla Parishad Class 3 and 4 Employees Inter District Transfer Rules framed under Schedule to Govt. Resolution dated 27th May, 2009 (for short, the Transfer Rules), the couple should be posted at one and the same place as far as possible. If not, the distance between the places of their posting should not be more than 30 Kms. Aggrieved by the transfer, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.29 of 2009 before this Court. This Court directed the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner within stipulated time. Since the representation was not decided within stipulated time, Contempt proceedings were filed by the petitioner against the respondents. In the mean time, the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad directed that the case of the petitioner be considered in general transfer of 2009.
4. By order dated 15th June, 2006 the petitioner came to be transferred from Dorli to Bolili Panchayat Samiti head quarter. He was relived from Dorli on 23-06-2009 and on same day he reported at Panchayat Samiti, Biloli. Since the transfer of the petitioner was on his request, he was not given transfer allowance and Dearness allowance or joining time. It is contended that while effecting transfer the petitioner should have been transferred at the place of his choice and Rule regarding posting the couple at one place or the places within 30Kms. Distance. In case of request transfer, the transferee is not entitled to get transfer allowance and Dearness allowance or joining time etc.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that, on 23-06-2009 he was relived on same day and he reported at Biloli head quarters of Panchayat Samiti on 24-06-2009. He gave written request to post him at Mutnyal, Tq. Biloli he has to be posted as per his request. The post of primary teacher at Mutnyal was vacant as Mr. Rajkondwar teacher was transferred and also relived. The post at Kesrali was not then vacant. However, inspite of this with malafide intention and extraneous considerations the respondent – Block Development Officer did not transfer the petitioner at Mutnyal. It is further case of the petitioner that, he was compelled to sit idle at Panchayat Samiti, Biloli. This action of respondent – Block Development Officer is arbitrary, capricious and result of malafides. It is further case of the petitioner that, the respondent caused harassment of the petitioner due to filing of petition and contempt proceedings against the respondent No. 1.
6. It is further case of the petitioner that, on 03-07-2009, the respondent No.3 Mr. Rajurwar reported Panchaayat Samiti, Biloli on transfer. The respondent No.2 readily
.obliged him by posting at Mutnyal, the place where the petitioner was seeking his posting in view of request transfer. The petitioner came to be posted at Kesrali by order dated 06-07-2009 and he is deemed to have joined on 23-06-2009, and the respondent No. 3 reported to have been posted at Mutnyal.
7. The petitioner, therefore, moved the respondents 1 and 2 making grievance about his posting but was of no avail. The petitioner further states that, he was kept idle for long time against the order passed by Chief Executive Officer. The post facto posting given itself shows the malafides. The petitioner thus was denied posting of his choice. He is posted at long distance. The education of his children is put to jeopardy. The sum and substance of the contentions of the petitioner is that, though
