Bombay High Court
Hemant S/O Haridas Rangari vs Maha. State Power Generation ... on 21 October, 2016
Bench: V.A. Naik
1 wp5441.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5441 OF 2016
Hemant s/o Haridas Rangari,
aged about 56 years, occupation :
service, r/o B-1/4, Prakash Nagar,
Post Khaperkheda, District Nagpur. ... Petitioner
- Versus -
1) Maharashtra State Power Generation
Company Limited, through its
Managing Director, 1st Floor, Estrella
Batteries Expansion Compound,
Dharavi Road, Mumbai.
2) Executive Director, Human Resource
Department, Maharashtra State Power
Generation Company Limited, 1st Floor,
Estrella Batteries Expansion Compound,
Dharavi Road, Mumbai. ... Respondents
-----------------
Shri A.M. Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for the respondents.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A NAIK AND
KUM. INDIRA JAIN, JJ.
DATED : OCTOBER 21, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK
, J.) :
Rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith. The writ
petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the
learned Counsel for the parties.
2 wp5441.16
By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of the
Executive Director (HR), dated 12/9/2016 transferring the petitioner from
the Khaperkheda Thermal Power Station to the Parli Thermal Power
Station.
The petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer in
the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station since 2013 till he was
transferred by the impugned order to the Parli Thermal Power Station.
The petitioner has challenged the order of transfer on several grounds.
Shri Sudame, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, states
that the impugned order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. It is
stated that the petitioner is due for retirement on 30/6/2018. It is stated
that as per the guidelines of the respondent MAHAGENCO and specially
clause (6) thereof, an employee, who is due to retire, should not be
transferred during last two years of his service and if he is so transferred,
he should be transferred at the place of his choice. Secondly, according to
the petitioner, the transfer of employees, as per the guidelines, could be
effected only in the months of April and May and the impugned transfer
order is passed in the month of September 2016. It is stated that the
petitioner is desirous of settling at Nagpur, the daughter of the petitioner
is physically challenged and is admitted in a School for such students, at
Nagpur. It is stated that though the respondents have transferred the
petitioner from the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station, no other
Superintending Engineer is posted on the post from which the petitioner
3 wp5441.16
is transferred to the Parli Thermal Power Station. It is lastly stated that
due to acute shortage of water in the area where the Parli Thermal Power
Station is located, the Parli Thermal Power Station was not effectively
functioning during the last couple of years and the employees working in
the Parli Thermal Power Station have been accommodated elsewhere or
are given some alternate jobs.
Shri Mohgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents,
states that the transfer of the petitioner was made due to administrative
exigency. However, it is not disputed that the petitioner is due to retire
on attaining the age of superannuation on 30/6/2018. It is also admitted
that no other Superintending Engineer is posted on the post from which
the petitioner was transferred and that some other Superintending
Engineer in the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station is asked to hold the
additional charge of the post of the petitioner. It is stated that the Parli
Thermal Power Station has started functioning and, therefore, the
petitioner cannot make any grievance in that regard.
On hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that
the respondents were not justified in transferring the petitioner from the
Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station to the Parli Thermal Power Station.
Admittedly, the petitioner is due to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30/6/2018. As per guideline no.6 of the guidelines
framed by the respondents in the matter of transfers, it is provided that an
employee should not be transferred during the last two years of his service
4 wp5441.16
and if at all he is transferred, he must be posted at a place of his choice or
preference. The transfer of the petitioner is effected in the month of
September 2016 and that too, during the last two years of service of the
petitioner. It appears that the daughter of the petitioner is physically
challenged and she is taking education in a School for physically
challenged at Nagpur. Also, we find that though the petitioner was
transferred from the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station to the Parli
Thermal Power Station, no other Superintending Engineer has been
transferred on the post, in the Khaparkheda Thermal Power Station
where the petitioner was working. In our view, the respondents should
not have transferred the petitioner to the Parli Thermal Power Station at
the fag end of his service, more so, when his daughter is physically
challenged and as per the guidelines, transfers could be effected only in
the months of April and May and in this case, the respondent no.2 has
effected the transfer of the petitioner in the midst of the academic session,
i.e. in September 2016.
Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 12/9/2016 is quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as
to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
khj
