Bombay High Court
Ravindra Uttamrao Pachgade vs Zilla Parishad, Amravati Through ... on 27 August, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
31wp3679.2020(j).odt
1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3679 OF 2020
Ravindra Uttamrao Pachgade,
Age about 52 yrs., Occ. Service,
R/o. Chaura-kund, Tq. Dharni,
Dist. Amravati. .... PETITIONER
// VERSUS //
1. Zilla Parsiahd, Amravati,
through its Chief Executive
Officer, Camp, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati.
2. Education Officer (Primary),
Zilla Parishad, (Near Bhatkuli
Panchayat Samiti), Camp, Amravati.
3. Divisional Commissioner,
Amravati Division, Amravati,
Tq. & Dist. Amravati. .... RESPONDENTS
Mr.P.S. Patil, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. Gaurav Singh Sengar, Advocate h/f late Adv. Saoji, Advocate for
respondent Nos.1 and 2
Mr. A.A. Madiwale, AGP for respondent No.3
________________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATE : 27.08.2021.
ORAL JUDGMENT: [PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.]
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
31wp3679.2020(j).odt
3. The petitioner has made several requests for seeking his
transfer from Panchayat Samiti, Dharni to Panchayat Samiti,
Bhatkuli since the year 2015. But every time, on one ground or the
other, the request of the petitioner was neither considered nor was
it specifically decided. Most of the times, the authority concerned,
namely Chief Executive Officer would say that in due course of time
the request of the petitioner would be appropriately considered and
at one point of time, respondent No.1 had said that if a fresh
request is made by the petitioner, at the time of general transfers,
the same would be considered by him. All these assurances, have
proved to be hollow as the respondent No.1 has not considered and
decided the request of the petitioner for his transfer from Panchayat
Samiti, Dharni to Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli.
4. In the year 2015, when the first request for transfer was
made by the petitioner, there was of course rejection of the request
for transfer on the ground that at that point of time there was no
policy in place which permitted a transfer of an employee of Zilla
Parishad from one Panchayat Samiti to another Panchyat Samiti.
But, this policy underwent change in the year 2017 and thereafter,
such inter Panchayat Samiti transfers were permitted. So, the only
question that remained for the authorities to decide is, as to
whether or not on facts, after 2017 such a request for inter
31wp3679.2020(j).odt
Panchayat Samiti transfer should be granted ? But, that has not
been done by the authorities so far.
5. Today, a reply prepared by the respondent No.1 has been
sought to be produced before us. However, having regard to the
Covid Protocol, we have made a request to the learned counsel for
respondent No.1 to file the same in Registry, in accordance with the
SOP, which he would do. However, he submits, on the basis of the
reply that is proposed to be filed, that the power to decide such a
request for transfer lies with respondent No.3-the Divisional
Commissioner, Amravati and not with respondent No.1 and he
submits that this is what the reply of respondent No.1 states.
6. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply,
invites our attention to the observations made by respondent No.3
in his order dated 16.03.2020 in this very matter.
7. We have gone through the order dated 16.03.2020. It
shows that respondent No.3 has given a sympathetic consideration
to the grounds taken by the petitioner for his transfer from
Panchayat Samiti, Dharni to Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli. However,
respondent No.3 has also noted that there would be a need for
verification to be done by respondent No.1. Accordingly, he partly
allowed the appeal, but, left it to the discretion of respondent No.1
to take an appropriate decision, depending upon the facts and
31wp3679.2020(j).odt
circumstances of the case, which would eventually emerge after
carrying out due verification of the grounds taken by the petitioner.
8. So the order dated 16.03.2020 indicates that in principle,
respondent No.3 has already found that there is substance in the
grounds taken by the petitioner seeking his transfer from one
Panchayat Samiti to anther Panchayat Samiti. But, out of abundant
precaution, he also found, there was a need for respondent No.1 to
verify the factual situation and then take appropriate decision.
Thus, now the final call is required to be taken by the respondent
No.1 and as he has not taken, we deem it necessary to issue
necessary directions to the respondent No.1.
9. The respondent No.1 is directed to decide the request of
the petitioner for his transfer from Panchayat Samiti, Dharni to
Panchayat Samiti, Bhatkuli, in accordance with the directions which
he has already received from respondent No.3 in the order dated
16.03.2020 passed in Appeal No.177 of 2019 within a period of
three weeks from the date of the order.
10. Rule accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE
nd.thawre
