1 wp-9076-2010 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9076 OF 2010 Shri Sanjay Dnyandeo Pawar .. Petitioner Vs. The Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.V. Anturkar,i/b. Mr. S.B. Deshmukh, for the petitioner. Mr. Vijay Patil, Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan, for respondent No.3. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. DATE : 16TH DECEMBER, 2010 P.C. This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 15th October, 2010 which was filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was working as S.D.O., Maval, and by an order dated 20th November, 2009 by which time he had completed about 8 months of 2 wp-9076-2010 tenure, came to be transferred as the Special Land Acquisition Officer No.II, Pune. In his place the respondent No.3 who was earlier transferred by an order dated 20th March, 2009 from the post of S.D.O., Pune to District Resettlement Officer, Solapur, came to be re-transferred and, therefore, these orders came to be challenged in O.A. No.1442 of 2009. 3. It was mainly contended that the petitioner’s transfer was a mid term transfer and in breach of the minimum assured term under the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short “the Transfer Act”). It was also alleged that the transfer of respondent No.3 was made by way of favours and in fact there was no material before the Competent Authority to hold that it was a special case made out or under special circumstances or for exceptional or special reasons he was re-transferred from Solapur to Pune. 4. The Tribunal in the impugned order considered the rival contentions as well as the provisions of the Transfer Act and noted that the re-transfer of the respondent No.3 as S.D.O., Maval was approved by the Chief Minister for some special reasons, and there were no procedural lapses and 3 wp-9076-2010 consequently so as to accommodate the respondent No.3 for his personal reasons, the petitioner was shifted as a Special Land Acquisition Officer No.II at Pune. It is pertinent to record at this stage that admittedly by the impugned transfer order the petitioner remained in the office of Collector, Pune, though his responsibilities were changed. He continued to function from the very same office as S.D.O., Maval and when he has been posted as Special Land Acquisition Officer No.II, Pune he remains in the very same office. Thus there was no dislocation of his family or his assignment. It is for these reasons that we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal, despite the fact that Mr. Anturkar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised some relevant issues for our consideration and more particularly in the procedure that was followed for the re-transfer of respondent No.3. Mr. Patil, the learned Government Pleader has assured us that in the forthcoming round of general transfers the case of respondent No.3 may be considered for transfer from Pune to some other location provided there are no adverse actions or reports against him by then. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has also submitted before us that by March, 2011 the medical treatment of respondent No.3 is likely to be completed which treatment he receives at Pune. Therefore, he has no objection if his name is 4 wp-9076-2010 considered in the general round of transfers scheduled to take place in April/May, 2011. 5. Petition is rejected. (U. D. SALVI,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)