Bombay High Court Quashes Premature Transfer of Deputy Engineer in Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran — Transfer Order Issued Within Three-Year Deputation Period Without Justification Violates Service Conditions. Deputation Period Cannot Be Curtailed Arbitrarily; Transfer Order Dated 15.6.2009 Set Aside.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Accused
  • 3
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Kishor s/o Mallayya Sandry, was working as Deputy Engineer at Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Division, Aurangabad (respondent no.2). By communication dated 30.8.2008, he was transferred on deputation to Nagar Parishad, Jalna for a period of three years. He joined at Jalna on 1.10.2008. However, on 15.6.2009, respondent no.2 issued a transfer order retransferring the petitioner to Aurangabad, within the three-year deputation period. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation on 8.7.2009 seeking cancellation, but it was not decided. He then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the transfer order. The court considered the submissions of the petitioner's counsel that the transfer was premature and without justification. The court held that the transfer order dated 15.6.2009, retransferring the petitioner within the three-year deputation period, was arbitrary and unsustainable. Accordingly, the court quashed and set aside the transfer order and directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue at Jalna for the remainder of the deputation period. Rule was made absolute accordingly.

Headnote

A) Service Law - Transfer - Deputation - Transfer Order Within Fixed Tenure - Petitioner was transferred on deputation for three years but was retransferred within nine months without any justification - Court held that such premature transfer without valid reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable - Held that the transfer order dated 15.6.2009 is quashed and set aside (Paras 1-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the transfer order dated 15.6.2009, retransferring the petitioner within the three-year deputation period, is arbitrary and liable to be quashed?

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court quashed and set aside the transfer order dated 15.6.2009 and directed that the petitioner be allowed to continue at Jalna for the remainder of the deputation period. Rule made absolute.

Law Points

  • Transfer order within fixed tenure is arbitrary
  • Transfer order without considering representation is violative of natural justice
  • Deputation period cannot be curtailed without valid reasons
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 11

WRIT PETITION NO. 5398 OF 2009

2010-10-21

S.B.Deshumkh, Shrihari P. Davare

Shri Prashant S.Shinde h/f Shri S.G.Shinde for petitioner, Shri S.K.Kadam A.G.P. for respondent no.1, Shri D.P.Bakshi for respondent no.2, Shri H.K.Munde for respondent no.3

Kishor s/o Mallayya Sandry

The State of Maharashtra, Chief Administrative Officer, Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran Mandal, Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Jalna, Shri V.B.Sable

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging transfer order

Remedy Sought

Quashment of transfer order dated 15.6.2009 and continuation at Jalna

Filing Reason

Petitioner was retransferred within three-year deputation period without justification

Issues

Whether the transfer order dated 15.6.2009 is arbitrary and liable to be quashed?

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer order was issued within the three-year deputation period without any justification and despite representation.

Ratio Decidendi

A transfer order issued within a fixed deputation period without valid reasons is arbitrary and unsustainable.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner has assailed the order of his transfer dated 15.6.2009 (Exh. 'B'), issued by respondent no.2, transferring him from Nagar Parishad, Jalna to Chief Engineer Divisional Department, Aurangabad, by present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, according to the petitioner, respondent no.2 again on 15.6.2009 issued transfer order, thereby retransferring the petitioner to Aurangabad. Hence, being aggrieved by the said transfer dated 15.6.2009, by which the petitioner came to be re-transferred within the period of three years, the petitioner has challenged the said order in the present petition and prayed for quashment thereof.

Procedural History

Petitioner was transferred on deputation for three years on 30.8.2008, joined on 1.10.2008. On 15.6.2009, retransfer order issued. Petitioner filed representation on 8.7.2009, not decided. Filed writ petition on 2009. Heard on 12.10.2010, judgment pronounced on 21.10.2010.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Premature Transfer of Deputy Engineer in Maharashtra Jeevan Pradhikaran — Transfer Order Issued Within Three-Year Deputation Period Without Justification Violates Service Conditions. Deputation Period Cannot Be Curtailed A...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Sets Aside Remand Order in Specific Performance Suit — District Judge Exceeded Powers Under Order 41 Rule 23 CPC by Remanding Suit Without Deciding Pending Applications. The Court Held That Remand Is Permissible Only When Decree Is Rever...