1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2012 OF 2008 Mr. Shrishail Bhimgonda Biradar. .... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sangli. .... Respondent. ....... Mr. Amit Sale for the Petitioner. None for the Respondent. ........ CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 04TH APRIL 2008. P.C. :- The Petitioner who is a Gramsevak has been transferred from the Panchayat Samiti, Jat to the Panchayat Samiti, Atpadi in Sangli District. A complaint of Unfair Labour Practices that was instituted by the Petitioner has been dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 12th March 2008. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner on a Government Resolution dated 25th April 2005 and it has been urged that Clause 8(i) 2 of the Resolution provides that cases of employees who have physically or mentally challenged children should be considered sympathetically so as to minimize inconvenience. The Petitioner has relied upon a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon in the General Hospital at Sangli on 16th June 2005 recording that his daughter is mentally retarded, with a permanent disability of 60%. The certificate also records that the child requires admission to a special school. The Government Resolution dated 25th April 2005 cannot be construed as conferring upon an employee a vested right against transfer. Once the service is transferable, it is for the Government to consider individual cases of hardship in the light of the provisions contained in the Government Resolution. The material which has been placed before the Court, if it is true, would suggest that the case of the Petitioner would have to be considered sympathetically having regard to the mentally challenged position of his daughter. However, it would be impermissible, having regard to the well settled parameters in law, for this Court to interfere with the order of transfer particularly since the Industrial Court after a trial into a complaint of unfair labour practice has 3 come to the conclusion that no unfair labour practice has been committed and that there were malafides or statutory violations. Hence, while the interference of this Court under Article 226 is not warranted, the interest of justice would be served if permission is granted to the Petitioner to move a representation to the Chief Officer of the Zilla Parishad, placing all relevant circumstances on record. Such a representation, if made, shall be duly and sympathetically considered in accordance with law and particularly in the context of the applicable Government Resolutions which hold the field. Having regard to the nature of the aforesaid directions, it was not necessary for this Court to issue notice to the Respondent since the order of the Labour Court has not been interfered with. It is also clarified that the pendency of the representation to be made by the Petitioner before the competent authority shall not operate to stay the order of transfer in the meantime. The Petition is accordingly disposed of.