wp11447.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.11447 OF 2010 Shaikh Abdul Samad Abdul Quader, R/o-Sali Galli, Near Shani Mandir, Old Jalna, Jalna. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) Zilla Parishad, Through its Chief Executive Officer, Jalna, 3) Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jalna, 4) Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Jafrabad, Dist-Jalna, 5) Nitin s/o Bansilal Shrimangale, Sr. Assistant, Panchayat Samiti, Jalna. ...RESPONDENTS. wp11447.10 2 ... Shri. S.B. Talekar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. V.D. Rakh, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Shri. A.S. Usmanpurkar Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. Shri.S.G. Bhalerao Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. RESERVED ON : 27TH JANUARY, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON : 7TH FEBRUARY, 2011 ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 2. The Petitioner challenges his transfer order dated 6th December 2010, transferring the Petitioner from Panchayat Samiti, Jalna to Panchayat Samiti, Jafrabad. Earlier by an order dated 31st May 2007, the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna had transferred the Petitioner from Jalna to Jafrabad, which is at 50 K.M.s away from Jalna and is in the same District. wp11447.10 3 The Petitioner challenged the said transfer order in Writ Petition No.3169 of 2007. The interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioner. By an order dated 17th March 2010, the Division Bench of this Court, (CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ.), disposed of the Petition, observing that no error was found in the transfer order. However, to protect the academic year of the children of the Petitioner, ad interim relief granted earlier by the Division Bench of this Court, was continued till 31st May, 2010. It was further observed by the Court that the employer - transferring authority was thereafter entitled to pass appropriate orders. 3. Shri. Talekar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been transferred before two years of his retirement. The person who is transferred from Jafrabad to Jalna, had rendered hardly 2 years of service. The counsel further refers to a wp11447.10 4 communication dated 21st May 2010, issued by the State Government addressed to all Chief Executive Officers in the State, wherein it was intimated that the employees working in Zilla Parishad and Panchayat Samiti in Class-III and Class-IV category, shall not be transferred in the said year. The counsel further submits that, it is the policy of the State that the employees who are 55 years old, shall not be transferred, as far as possible. 4. The affidavit in reply came to be filed on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. In Para 2 and 3 of the reply, the deponent contends that: "2. In reply to Para no.3 and 4, the deponent submits that, on 31st May 2007 the Petitioner was transferred from Panchayat Samiti, Jalna to Panchayat Samiti, Jafrabad. This transfer was as per Government Resolution wp11447.10 5 no.GPB.3007/P.K.18/Astha -14 Dt. 04.05.2007 where it was directed that who has completed 10 years service at particular station should be transferred. The petitioner has completed 10 years and 2 months service at Panchayat Samiti, Jalna upto year 2007 and till December 2010 the service of petitioner at Panchayat Samiti, Jalna is more than 14 year. The period is calculated from 12.07.1996. As per clause no.4(3) of Government Resolution Dt. 04.05.2007 the petitioner was transferred in the year 2007 from Panchayat Samiti, Jalna. The Petitioner challenged the said transfer order before this Hon'ble High Court by filing petition bearing writ petition no.3169/2007 in which exparte Ad- interim relief was granted by this Hon'ble High Court. The said writ petition has been disposed of by Hon'ble High Court by order wp11447.10 6 Dt. 17th March, 2010 however this Hon'ble High Court has held that the transfer order of the petitioner is legal and proper while disposing the petition this Hon'ble High Court has directed that considering the children's academic year, the Ad- interim relief granted by this Court shall operative till 31st May, 2010. The employer- transferring authority is thereafter entitled to pass appropriate orders. Other contentions are not correct hence denied by this deponent. 3. In reply to Para no.5, the deponent submits that, the petitioner was transferred as per the Government Resolution Dt. 4th May, 2007 therefore the Government Resolution Dt. 6th May, 2010 is not applicable in the present matter. Government Resolution Dt. 6th May, 2010 is applicable only for routine transfers for year 2010 therefore wp11447.10 7 also Government Resolution Dt. 6th May, 2010 is not applicable in the present matter. The present authority has transferred the petitioner as per the order Dt. 17th March, 2010 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no.3169/2007. The transfer order of petitioner was issued on the basis of Government Resolution Dt. 4th May, 2007 and as per the order Dt. 17th March, 2010 passed by this Hon'ble High Court in writ petition no. 3169/2007. The copy is annexed by the petitioner alongwith the petition." 5. Shri. Usmanpurkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner was working at the same place for more than ten years and under the orders passed by the High Court in earlier Writ Petition No.3169 of 2007, on 17th March, 2010, it was observed that the employer was entitled to pass orders in wp11447.10 8 respect of transfer of the Petitioner. The counsel submits that the policy of the State in respect of not to transfer the employees in the year 2010, was not applicable in the facts of the present case. The employee who was transferred from Jafrabad to Jalna, is a disabled person. He has already joined at the transferred place and the Petitioner has been relieved. 6. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the orders passed by this Court in the earlier proceedings of the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner. It is a fact that the Petitioner had served more than ten years at the same place. The Petitioner's transfer order issued on 31st May, 2007, was stayed by this Court, but ultimately the Petition came to be disposed of. We do not find any error in the view adopted by the Authority that the Petitioner's case of transfer relates back to the year 2007. wp11447.10 9 The earlier transfer order could not be given effect as pending admission of the Petition, the transfer order was stayed. But the Authorities were, later on, authorized to pass appropriate orders. In the facts of the case, we do not find any patent or glaring error in the transfer of the Petitioner. The transferred place is hardly at 50 K.M.s from Jalna. The Petitioner is already relieved. The incoming person has joined the services, who is said to be a disabled person. Taking into consideration entire conspectus of the matter, we do not find that in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, any interference is warranted in the transfer order. The Writ Petition is dismissed. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp11447.10