Bombay High Court
Vinod Sitaram Uikey vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. ... on 9 September, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Anil S. Kilor
Judgment 1 wp3455.21.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3455 OF 2021
Vinod Sitaram Uikey,
aged about 50 years, Occupation -
Deputy Engineer, Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development
Authority, Resident of behind
Telephone Exchange at post
Kondhali, Tahsil : Katol,
Dist. Nagpur.
.... PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. State of Maharashtra,
through Secretary, Housing
Department, Mantralaya,
Madam Cama Road,
Mumbai-440 032.
2. Maharashtra Housing and Area
Development Authority, through
its Secretary, Gruha Nirman Bhawan,
Bandra (East), Mumbai.
.... RESPONDENTS.
______________________________________________________________
Shri Akshay Naik, Advocate a/w. Shri A.A.Choube, Adv. for Petitioner.
Shri A.S.Fulzele, Addl.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
Shri Bhushan Mohta, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
ANIL S. KILOR, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 09, 2021
Judgment 2 wp3455.21.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per : Sunil B. Shukre, J.)
1. Heard Shri Akshay Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri A.S.Fulzele, learned Addl.G.P. for respondent No.1 and Shri
Bhushan Mohta, learned counsel, who appeared by waiving notice for
respondent No.2.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the wife of the
petitioner and the petitioner both are undergoing IVF treatment and
the petitioner has completed three years of his service at Nagpur and as
the petitioner and the wife are undergoing the IVF treatment already at
Nagpur and there have been available vacancies at Nagpur, the request
of the petitioner for his retention at Nagpur and being posted against
the available vacancies can always be granted by the respondents,
especially when the respondent/State has also granted request of
Smt.M.N.Aundhekar, Smt.D.B.Salunkhe and Shri Sudhakar
Bahegavhankar for their retention at their respective places of posting
before their transfer, in spite of the fact that at least two of them Smt.
Judgment 3 wp3455.21.odt
Aundhekar and Smt. Salunkhe had completed 9 years of their tenure at
the same place. It is submitted that the similar request of the petitioner,
based upon the genuine grounds, has not been considered in any
manner by the respondent/State.
4. On going through the revised transfer order dated
27/08/2021, we find that the request of some of the Deputy Engineers
for their retention at the same place, in spite of the fact that they had
completed about 9 years of service at that place has been granted by
the State Government. If this is so and also when there are vacancies
available at Nagpur, the State Government would be required to
reasonably consider the request of the petitioner by applying the Rule
of Equality and without making any discrimination between its own
employees.
5. In view of above, we partly allow the petition and direct
respondent No.1-State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Housing
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to treat this petition as fresh
representation of the petitioner and decide the same in accordance
with law on the basis of equality and without any discrimination, as
early as possible and in any case, within four weeks from the date of
the order.
Judgment 4 wp3455.21.odt
6. Meanwhile, the petitioner having not been relieved from his
present posting at Nagpur, as stated by learned counsel for the
petitioner, and there being available vacancies also at Nagpur, the
petitioner shall be retained at Nagpur till the representation in the
nature of this petition is decided by the respondent No.1 appropriately
and in accordance with law.
Rule accordingly. No costs.
( ANIL S. KILOR, J ) ( SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
RRaut..
