1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3740 OF 2009 (Umesh s/o Wamanrao Rahate vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri Warulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. Smt. S.W. Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.3. ------- CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND P.B.VARALE, JJ. DATED : JUNE 18, 2010 Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By this writ petition, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 15/6/2009 by which he was transferred from Nagpur to Anjangaon Surji. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, while dealing with the challenge to the order of transfer, in our opinion, has considered all the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner in proper 2 perspective and for the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 15.7.2009 and more particularly, paragraphs (7) and (8) thereof, has rightly dismissed the original application. Shri Warulkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, at the outset invited our attention to Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, “the Act”) and submitted that the petitioner is from non-secretariat service in Group `C' and was not due for transfer since he had not completed two tenures of three years at Nagpur. The learned Counsel for the petitioner did not urge any other contention. In this case, the petitioner had admittedly completed one normal tenure of three years at Nagpur. We have perused the provisions of Section 3 of the Act. It is true that first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act does mention that if a State Government employee is from non- secretariat service in Group `C', he shall be transferred from the post held on his completion of 3 two full tenures at that Office or Department to another Office or Department. However, this provision does not prohibit the Government from transferring the employee after completion of one tenure of three years. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act only means that on completion of two full tenures, it is mandatory to transfer such employee. This provision is only an enabling provision and did not put any impediment on the Government from transferring such employee after completion of one full tenure. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment. Hence, the petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj