Sanjay Shankar Shedge vs Raigad Zilla Parishad Alibaug And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3781 Bom

                                                             516-wp-6286-2017



         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       WRIT PETITION NO. 6286 OF 2017

 Sanjay Shankar Shedge                            ...Petitioner
        Versus
 Raigad Zilla Parishad Alibaug And Ors.            ...Respondents
                                  ---
 Mr.Avinash K. Jalisatgi a/w. Mr.Amol B. Desai i/b Ratnesh R Mishra
 for the Petitioner.

 Mr.C.G. Gavnekar for Respondent No. 2.

 Mr.P.P. More, AGP for Respondent No.3-State.
                                 ---
                         CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR &
                                    M.S. SONAK, JJ.

DATE : 29th JUNE 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT:(Per: SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India the petitioner who is working on the post

of Extension Officer (Statistic) has challenged the order dated

19-05-2017 by which he has been transfered from Roha to Murud.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not

completed the normal tenure of 10 years of positing at one place as

fixed in the transfer policy. According to him he has completed only

7 years and 11 months at the present place of posting and in such

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 4

516-wp-6286-2017

circumstances the impugned transfer order is in violation of transfer

policy. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that no reasons have

been assigned in the impugned transfer order as to why he has been

transfered prior to completion of his normal tenure of posting.

3. The respondents have filed reply and have justified the

action of the transfer of the petitioner. It has been stated that the

Respondent No.1 Zilla Parishad is having cadre of Extension Officer

(Statistics). There are in total 37 posts sanctioned in the said cadre.

Out of 37 posts, 34 posts are filled leaving behind vacancy of 3

posts. Out of 37 posts, 17 posts are allotted to Integrated Child

Development Scheme Project (ICDS). The remaining 20 posts are

allotted to General Administration. Out of 17 posts for ICDS, 16

posts are filled and 1 post is vacant. The petitioner at the time of

transfer was working at Roha Block on ICDS Project. The vacant

post is at Murud which is at a distance of 32 k.m. from Roha. The

Block of Murud is hilly region requiring particular attention and

Officer to attend the activities of ICDS. The said post had remained

vacant for more than one year and therefore, under Government

decision dated 15-05-2014, it was necessary to take a decision to fill

the said post and accordingly, by following the procedure the

petitioner has been transfered to Murud. It has been further stated

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 4

516-wp-6286-2017

that prior to the said decision survey of cadre of ICDS was taken and

it was found that the petitioner was continuously working at the

present post and he was at serial No.3 in the said cadre. Two other

senior persons in the cadre to the petitioner namely Shri.A.B. Thale

and Shri.R.B. Ghotkar who have put more number of years at Pen

and Mangaon Block. The respondents have further stated that both

of them were aged about 56 years and about to retire on

superannuation on completion of 58 years. Cahpter-1 Clause 3(kh)

of the Government Decision dated 15-05-2014 provides that the

employees who have completed 53 years on 31 st May should be

exempted from Transfer. In the circumstances, those Extensions

Officer though senior to the petitioner could not have been

transferred from their respective Blocks namely Pen and Mangaon.

It is also the case of the respondents that for the administrative

exigencies the employee can be transferred even prior to completion

of normal tenure at particular place.

4. Having gone through the aforesaid reasons we are

satisfied that there was sufficient administrative exigency requiring

the petitioner to be transfered before completion of normal tenure

of posting. It has now been well settled that transfer is an incident

of service and in the absence of strong case of malafide or breach of

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 4

516-wp-6286-2017

statutory rules or the transfer order being passed by the incompetent

authority the same will not be interfered into by the Courts. The

contention of the petitioner that the reasons ought to have been

assigned in the transfer order is wholly misconceived. The employer

is fully empowered to transfer his employee for the administrative

reasons and that the reasons need not to be spelled out in the

transfer order.

5. Having regard to the aforesaid in our considered view

no case is made out to interfere into the impugned transfer order.

As a result the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

 (M.S. SONAK, J.)                               (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR , J.)




      N.S. Kamble                                                           page 4 of 4