1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3478 OF 2007. (1) Prabhakar Vitthal Tembhurne, (2) Ramesh Sukru Meshram, (3) Rambhu Govind Kalzaskar, (4) Nilkanth Dewaji Meshram & (4) Ramesh Narayan Rote, R/o. Armori, Distt. Gadchiroli. .. VERSUS .. (1) The Director, Mah. State Silk & Handloom Corpn., Nagpur, (2) Secretary, Mah. State Silk & Handloom Corpn, M.S., Nagpur, & (3) The Silk Development Officer, Tq. Armori, Dist. Gadchiroli. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.E.Raghorte, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri D.B.Patel, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : JANUARY 19, 2010. 1. This petition by employees of respondent No.1 Maharashtra State Silk and Handloom Corporation is directed against orders passed below Exh.2 by the learned Member, Industrial Court, whereby he refused to grant stay to the transfer of the petitioners to various places. The petitioners had sought a review of the order and review application also came to be rejected by orders dated 3rd August, 2007. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 and submits that Group “D” employee can be transferred only in three circumstances, namely, mutual transfer, request transfer and / or when there is substantiated complaint of serious nature. He submits that 2 none of these three conditions existed when the petitioner was transferred by an order dated 23.05.2007 and the Industrial Court could have seen this. The Industrial Court could have also seen that a Gardener is transferred as Peon. 3. As rightly pointed out by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, the need for transfer arose on account of re-structuring of the entire directorate by Government Resolution dated 25th May, 2007. Since the posts themselves were transferred, the petitioners had to go to other posts. He submits that as the post of Gardener was not available the petitioner was accommodated as Peon. The person concerned should have, in fact, no grievance, since, otherwise for want of post the person concerned should have been discharged after paying him requisite compensation. 4. In any case, since the petition is directed against the interim order, the petitioner may pursue their remedies at the time of final adjudication of the matter before the Industrial Court. No case for interference is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE RR..