1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.2953 OF 2009 (Chandrasen R. Shamkuwar vs. State and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND F.M.REIS, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 9, 2009 Heard Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.1, Shri Kakani, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2 and Shri Verma, learned Counsel for the respondent no.3. The petition is directed against the order of transfer dated 15.6.2009 whereby petitioner is transferred from Bhandara to Bhiwapur. The order of transfer is challenged on the ground that it is violative of provisions of Section 4(2) and (4)(ii) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of 2 Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. Shri Samarth, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that the Competent Authority is required to prepare every year in the month of January a list of Government Servants due for transfer in the month of April and May. However, in the instant case, such list is not prepared. Secondly, as per Section 4 of the said Act, transfers of Government servants shall ordinarily be made only once in a year in the month of April or May and as per Section 4(4)(ii), where the competent Authority is satisfied that the transfer is essential due to exceptional circumstances or special reasons, after recording the same in writing and with the prior approval of the next higher Authority, such transfer can be effected in any other month. However, in the instant case, though transfer of petitioner is effected in the month other than April or May, there are no reasons given by the respondent no.2 and, therefore, the impugned order of transfer cannot be sustained in law. Shri Kakani, learned Counsel for the 3 respondent no.2, states that so far as provisions of Section 4(2) of the said Act are concerned, the respondent no.1 has issued Circular dated 1.6.2009 which stipulates that because of election, list of employees could not be prepared in the month of January and transfer of employees could not be effected in the month of April or May, the Department was permitted to transfer employees on or before 15/6/2009. This reason was common in respect of all the transfers, which were to be made in the whole State of Maharashtra. It satisfies the requirement of Section 4(2) of the said Act. It is further submitted that so far as provisions of Section 4(4)(ii) of the said Act are concerned, the respondent no.2 in fact had prepared a list of employees due for transfer, however, the said list was prepared in the month of April instead of January and name of the petitioner also finds place in the said list. It is further contended that petitioner in fact has completed three years at Bhandara and was even otherwise due for transfer. The respondent no.2 has denied the allegations of malafides. We have considered the contentions 4 canvassed by the respective Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts, it appears that action of the respondent Authorities is consistent with the provisions of Section 4(2) and (4)(ii) of the said Act. Hence, no interference is called for. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj