Bombay High Court
Smt.Suman Hari Bodele vs State Of Mah. & 3 Others on 4 March, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1
wp243.99
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 243 OF 1999
Suman Hari Bodele,
aged 37 yrs., Occu.
Service, R/0 16, Girni
Well, P.O. Jaripatka,
New Indora, Nagpur. PETITIONER.
VERSUS
1] State of Maharashtra,
Department of Social Welfare,
Mantralaya, Bombay, through
its Secretary.
2] The Director, Social Welfare
Department, Pune-1.
3] The Divisional Officer
Social Welfare Department,
Nagpur Division Nagpur.
4] The Divisional Officer,
Social Welfare Department,
Nashik Division Nashik. RESPONDENTS.
*************
None for the petitioner.
Shri P. S. Tembhare, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
*************
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A. S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
Dated : MARCH 04, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A. S. Chandurkar J.)
None for the petitioner. Shri P. S. Tembhare, the learned
wp243.99
Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 4. With the assistance
of the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents we have
perused the writ petition and the documents filed on record. The challenge
in the present writ petition is to the order dated 31.07.1998 passed by the
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 257 of 1997
whereby the said original application seeking relief of payment of salary for
the period from 20.08.1995 to 26.09.1996 came to be rejected.
2] The petitioner was appointed as a Lady Welfare Officer on
26.11.1993. She initially joined her service at Nagpur and by order dated
19.08.1995 her services came to be transferred to the Social Welfare
Department at Nashik. This order of transfer was challenged by the
petitioner in Original Application No. 741 of 1995 and by judgment dated
31.07.1996 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed the said
Original Application and quashed the order of transfer dated 19.08.1995.
The petitioner thereafter took steps to join her office at Nagpur. The
petitioner however was not paid salary for the period from 20.08.1995 to
26.09.1996 and therefore she filed another Original Application bearing no.
257 of 1997 and prayed for the relief of grant of salary for aforesaid period.
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed
the original application on the ground that the petitioner had not discharged
her duties either at Nagpur or at Nashik during said period and hence was
not entitled for any relief. This order is challenged in the present writ
petition.
wp243.99
3] According to the petitioner as the order of transfer dated
19.08.1995 was quashed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by
judgment dated 31.07.1996, the petitioner was deemed to have worked at
the office at Nagpur and therefore she was entitled to receive salary for the
period from 20.08.1995 onwards till she again joined the services.
4] In the return filed on behalf of the respondents it has been
categorically stated that the petitioner had not discharged her duties for the
period for which she was seeking payment of salary. It is further stated that
as the order of transfer was not stayed, the petitioner ought to have
discharged her duties at Nashik.
5] It is to be noted that in the Original Application filed by the
petitioner challenging the order of transfer dated 19.08.1995, the relief of
payment of salary for the period from 20.08.1995 onwards could have been
made. However, no such prayer was made in the said Original Application.
Even if it is assumed that such relief was sought by the petitioner in the said
Original Application, the same stands denied as the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal merely quashed the order of transfer dated
19.08.1995. Similarly in the subsequent Original Application that was filed
by the petitioner it was not her case that she had discharged her duties for
the aforesaid period. The assertions made by the respondents in the return
that the petitioner had not discharged duties during aforesaid period have
not been controverted. The ground that as the impugned order of transfer
was set aside and therefore the petitioner was deemed to have discharged
wp243.99
duties at Nagpur cannot be accepted as there was no order of stay granted in
favour of the petitioner which enabled her to continue at Nagpur.
5] In view of aforesaid no error is found with the order passed by
the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 31.07.1998. There is no
merit in the writ petition. The same is accordingly dismissed with no order
as to costs.
ig JUDGE JUDGE
svk
