Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, S.G. MEHARE, JJ.
Kishor S/o. Malayya Sandry - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary, Water Supply Department Mantralaya & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 10239 of 2021
Decided On : 04-03-2022
Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Act, 1976 - Section 66 - Service Matters - Allegations of non-performance of assigned tasks - There are several allegations against petitioner - He was issued with a charge-sheet - An Enquiry Officer is yet to be appointed - Petitioner has tendered his reply to the charges - Enquiry is yet to be initiated - Though the transfer of the petitioner is not stated to be for special reasons, administrative exigencies can be termed as special reasons - There are no mala fides against petitioner - No member of any Zilla Parishad has exerted any pressure to cause his transfer - Whether transfer of petitioner could be said to be for special reasons or only due to administrative exigencies - There is no dispute that he could be transferred till 31.8.2021 for administrative exigencies – Held, Petitioner has admittedly not joined at the place of transfer. He has been relieved and this Court has not granted him any protection or interim relief - He should have reported for duties. Had it been case that petitioner had applied for extension of joining time and if that request would have been accepted by employer, the prayer of the petitioner for salary could have been considered. In the absence of the same and since Rule 29, not only prohibits payment of salary, but considers such act to be a misbehaviour, we find that it would not be appropriate to grant salary for this period - Petition is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioner has put-forth prayer clauses (B), (C) and (D) as under-
(C) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, execution, operation and implementation the impugned order passed by Chief Administrative officer Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran on dated 27.8.2021 may kindly be stayed and the petitioner may be permitted to resume his duties as Deputy Engineer Rural Water Supply Sub-division Kinwat District Nanded and for that purpose issue necessary directions.
(D) Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the respondent no.2 and 4 may kindly be directed to consider the application/representation submitted by the petitioner on dated 26.8.2021 within 7 days or stipulated time.”
3. On 16.9.2021, when we had issued notice in this matter, a statement was made before us by the learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad that the petitioner is already relieved on 7.9.2021, pursuant to his transfer order dated 27.8.2021. Considering the said statement, this Court did not grant ad interim protection to the petitioner.
4. The strenuous submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioner can be summarized as under:-
(a) The petitioner joined service with respondent no.2 Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran as a Junior Engineer in 1985.
(b) He was promoted as a Sectional Engineer in 1990.
(c) He was promoted as Deputy Engineer in 2008.
(d) In 2014, he was deputed to the Zilla Parishad, Hingoli which indicates that the Zilla Parishad is not his employer. The Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran then again sent him on deputation to Zilla Parishad Gram Vikas Pani Purvatha Department at Aundha Nagnath where he worked from 13.8.2020.
(e) He was deputed to Zilla Parishad, Nanded by the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran on 31.8.2020 and since then, the petitioner is working as Deputy Engineer in the Rural Water Supply Division, Kinwat, District Nanded in the Nanded Zilla Parishad.
(f) From 9.9.2020 to 7.9.2021, the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran moved him to Zilla Parishad Gramin Pani Purvatha Vibhag, Kinwat, on deputation.
(g) By the transfer order dated 27.8.2021, the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran moved the petitioner to Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Mandal at Chandrapur.
(h) His tenure at Kallamnuri was for a period of 1 year and 7 months, at Zilla Parishad, Hingoli for 2 years and 10 months, at Aundha Nagnath for 22 days, at Kinwat for 1 year and now he is shifted to Chandrapur when he is due to retire in October, 2013.
(i) Vide Government Resolution dated 9.7.2021, the mandate of completing the general transfers is restricted upto 31.7.2021.
(j) For special transfers, the period for effecting transfers was from 31.8.2021 to 14.8.2021. The petitioner was transferred vide order dated 27.8.2021 which is 13 days beyond the limit for effecting special transfers. This has been done on the basis of a Government Resolution dated 29.7.2021 extending the limit to 31.8.2021.
(k) The transfer of the petitioner is not on account of any special reasons, but on account of administrative exigencies.
(l) After he got a wind of his probable transfer at the behest of the members of the Zilla Parishad, he had applied on 26.8.2021 to the Honourable Minister in-charge of the portfolio of the Water Supply and Sanitation, Mantralaya. One day later, he has been issued with the transfer order when he had put in only 11 months at Zilla Parishad, Kinwat on deputation.
5. The learned Advocate representing the Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran respondent no.2 submits that there are several allegations against the petitioner. He was issued with a charge-sheet on 21.5.2018. An Enquiry Officer is yet to be appointed. The petitioner has tendered his reply
The transfer of an employee is within the prerogative power of the employer, who can withdraw, alter or modify any previous order of transfer. The court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Co....
Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless shown to be an outcome of malafide exercise or in violation of statutory provisions prohibiting such transfer.
Burden of proving mala fides in transfer orders is high; transfers made in public interest are generally not subject to judicial intervention unless proven arbitrary.
The transfer was not punitive, and the transfer policy did not confer a legally enforceable right.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the transfer of a government employee should be made in public interest and for administrative reasons, and frequent transfers without justifi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
