1

W.P.No.186/17

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.186 OF 2017

Shivaji S/o Pandurang Nikale The State of Maharashtra and

others.

Office Notes, Office

Memoranda of Coram,

appearances, Court's

orders or directions

and

Registrar's

orders.

Court's or Judge's orders

Mr.Avinash Deshmukh, advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.P.S.Patil, Additional Government Pleader for the

State.

CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND

K.L.WADANE,JJ.

Date : 20.02.2017.

PER COURT :

1.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner assailed the order of transfer by filing

Original Application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed

the Original Application. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition.

3.

Mr.A.S.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the petitioner

strenuously contends that the petitioner at the relevant time was

working as Forester (Saw Mill), Aurangabad, since 2.6.2012. The

petitioner completed three years on 30.5.2015. The petitioner vide

the impugned order dated 29.5.2016, is transferred as Assistant

Plantation Officer in the Aurangabad Division. The learned

counsel submits that the petitioner at that time had completed about

2

W.P.No.186/17

four years. The second tenure of the petitioner had commenced.

After completion of one tenure, the employer did not choose to

transfer the petitioner and retained the petitioner at the same place.

In view of that the petitioner could not have been transferred before

completion of two tenures. The learned counsel submitshat the

judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

“Santosh Nandalal Dalal Vs. State of Maharashtra” reported in

2016(1) Mh.L.J.45, has been misread by the Tribunal. The learned

counsel further submits that the impugned order of transfer is

punitive. By way of punishment a person can not be transferred.

The notings in the file states that there are complaints against the

petitioner, for which the petitioner was issued notices and as such

the petitioner is transferred. Such a transfer is impermissible. The

learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

case of “Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others” reported

in 2009 (2) SCC 592.

4.

Mr.Shelke, learned counsel for Respondent No.4, who is

transferred in place of the petitioner states that petitioner has joined

at his transferred place on 1.6.2016 and since then is officiating his

duties.

5.

Learned Additional Government Pleader states that the

administrative exigencies prompted the Government to transfer the

petitioner. Considering the public interest, the transfer has been

3

W.P.No.186/17

effectuated. Learned A.G.P. relies on the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court in the case of “Santosh Nandalal Dalal Vs.

State of Maharashtra” referred to supra.

6.

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the

learned counsel for respective parties. The Division Bench of this

Court in the case of “Santosh Nandalal Dalal Vs. State of

Maharashtra” referred to supra has observed that proviso to

Section 3(1) of the Transfer Act, does not confer any right on

Group C employee from non-secretariat service to work at one

station for six years. The petitioner has worked at one station

holding the same post for four years and thereafter is transferred.

The transfer is considering the public interest. The notings in the

file has been reproduced by the Tribunal in its judgment. The same

is in vernacular language.