1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.457/2011 DEVENDRA B. BEDKHE ..VS.. STATE OF MAH & ORS. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.P.Marpakwar, advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 28, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Industrial court on 16.12.2010, rejecting an application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief and for staying the order of his transfer dated 29.3.2010. It is not in dispute that though the petitioner had not completed his tenure on the post at Katol, he was transferred to Gondia by the impugned order dated 29.3.2010. Though in terms of section 3 of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act 2005, normal tenure of a government servant in Class III would be three years and he can be continued in the same department for two consecutive terms, the provisions of section 4(5) of the Act of 2005 permit the transfer of a government servant even before completion of his tenure, 2 notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 of the Act. In special cases, after recording reasons in writing, with prior permission of the competent authority, a government servant can be transferred before completion of his normal tenure. On perusal of the impugned order it is clear that the authority has recorded the reasons for transferring the petitioner from Katol to Gondia under the transfer order dated 29.3.2010 and prior approval of the competent authority is also sought before transfer order dated 29.3.2010 was issued. Since the conditions of section 4(5) of the Act of 2004 were complied with, in the case of the petitioner, the Industrial Court committed no error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim relief. Since the order passed by the Industrial Court is just and proper, the same cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP