1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5864 OF 2009 Sanjay Kaduba Warkad, Age 37 yrs. Occ. Service (Asstt.Teacher), Samarth High School, Ambad), r/o Ambad, Tq. Ambad, Dist.Jalna. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. and 9 others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr.M.S.Choudhari, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatake, Additional Government Pleader, for respondent State. Mr.D.J.Choudhari, Adv., for respondent nos. 8 and 9. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 4th Dec., 2009. *** PER COURT : 1. The petitioner challenges his transfer order from Khultabad, dist. Aurangabad, to Ambad, 2 district Jalna. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted following grounds of challenge: (1) The transfer order does not refer to availing of expenditure on traveling allowance and daily allowance in view of Rule 41 Sub Rule (4) of Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. (2) The period of joining the transferred place is not mentioned. (3) Though petitioner reported to the authorities of the school at Ambad, he was not allowed to join. (4) The petitioner, thereafter, reported on 15.6.2009 but then the petitioner's salary, though petitioner is working, has not been disbursed so far. 2. The management has filed affidavit-in- reply. It seems, the management runs several schools and colleges at various places. According to Counsel appearing for the management, the petitioner was serving at Khultabad since last seven years. The management undertook general transfers and in that around 40 3 staff members were transferred from one school to another school. According to the Counsel, under the management Rules, the Secretary is empowered to issue the transfer orders. Our attention was invited by the Counsel for the management to the reply filed by the petitioner, to a show cause notice issued to him. We have perused the same. It was submitted by the Counsel that the management, which runs several institutions, has a right to transfer the employees inter se. 3. The contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the traveling allowance and joining period have some substance. There is some disagreement between the parties in respect of the petitioner's joining on 4.5.2009 and the refusal of the Headmaster to join the petitioner. But, even on this issue, the Counsel appearing for the management submits that a proposal has been forwarded to the Education Officer for releasing the salary of the petitioner from the date on which the petitioner reported for joining and, if there is some ambiguity in the proposal on this count, the management would clear the same, treating the petitioner to have joined the place of transfer on 4.5.2009. The Counsel appearing for the management further submitted that the traveling allowance and daily allowance, as permissible in law, would be paid to the petitioner. 4 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the management has placed reliance on the reported judgment in the matter of Airports Authority of India vs. Rajeev Ratan Pandey and others ( (2009) 8 SUPREME COURT CASES 337) in support of his contention that there are no mala fides in transfer of the petitioner as this is not a case where the petitioner is singled out and intentionally transferred. 5. The grievance of the petitioner, according to Counsel is, though he is B.P.Ed., is made to teach other subjects in which he is not trained like Hindi, Marathi, etc. Counsel appearing for the management submits that the petitioner would be allocated the work which is, in law, permissible, for a B.P.Ed. teacher. 6. In the light of the stand adopted by the management and the reply filed, we find that all the substantial issues raised in the argument by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are answered. The management shall act in accordance with the statements made before this Court and averments made in the affidavit-in- reply, diligently. The Education Officer, Secondary, is directed to pass appropriate orders on the proposals of salary and release the salary 5 at the earliest, in respect of the petitioner. The petition is accordingly disposed of. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] ... agp/wp5864-09