1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 124/2009 ( Nilesh Prakashpant Umak vs. CEO Z.P.Amravati and another) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 27th January, 2009. *** 1. Heard Shri S A Gordey, learned counsel for the petitioner; MR J B Kasat, for Respondent No.1 and Mr. N W Sambre, learned Govt. Pleader for Respondent No.2. 2. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1-Zilla Parishad to implement the decision of the Government dated 7.8.2008 which is annexed with the petition as Annexure V, wherein it is mentioned that the names of the Zilla Parishad employees mentioned in Annexure “A” to the said Government order are concerned, their claim for transfer be considered in view of the conditions stipulated in the said Government decision dated 7.8.2008. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the name of the petitioner in the said list is at Sr.No.32. The petitioner has prayed for inter-District transfer from Beed to Amravati. However, an action on the part of the Respondent- 2 Zilla Parishad necessitated the petitioner to file the present petition for appropriate direction. 3. Mr J B Kasat, learned counsel for the Zilla Parishad does not dispute the Government decision dated 7.8.2008; however has submitted that so far as the claim of the petitioner for Inter- Direct transfer is concerned, will be considered as and when the vacancy will arise at Amravati. 4. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it appears that, at present, for want of vacancy, the Respondent Zilla Parishad is unable to consider the claim of the petitioner for inter-District transfer, in the light of the Government decision dated 7.8.2008. However, in view of the statement made by the counsel for Zilla Parishad, it is also evident that as and when the vacancy arises, the claim of the petitioner will be considered. 5. In the circumstances, no further action in the present petition is necessary. The same is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare