Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra and its officers filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order dated 29th July 2010 (modified on 6th September 2010) passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.309 of 2010. The respondent, Deepak Babudas Vaishnav, was a Deputy Commissioner (Legal) in the Sales Tax department at Mumbai. He had earlier filed O.A. No.1275 of 2009, which was allowed on 13th January 2010 directing the respondents to grant him an appropriate posting in Group B within two weeks, in light of a Government Resolution dated 5.1.2007 and the Transfer Act, 2005. This order was not implemented, leading to Contempt Application No.30 of 2010. On 31st March 2010, the respondent was served with a transfer order posting him as Deputy Commissioner DHU-VAT-E-004 at Dhule. Dissatisfied, he filed O.A. No.309 of 2010 on 6th April 2010, alleging that the transfer was mala fide and intended to harass him, and that the earlier proposal to transfer him to Gondia was to a non-existent post. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, set aside the transfer order dated 31st March 2010 and directed that the respondent be posted at Mumbai. The State challenged this order. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Tribunal's order was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Compliance with Tribunal Order - The earlier Tribunal order dated 13.1.2010 directed posting in Group B within two weeks. The subsequent transfer order dated 31.3.2010 posting the respondent to Dhule was held not to be in compliance as it was not an appropriate posting and was passed after contempt proceedings. The Tribunal was justified in setting it aside and directing posting at Mumbai. (Paras 3-5)
B) Service Law - Transfer - Mala Fides - The respondent alleged that the transfer was mala fide and intended to harass him. The Tribunal found that the transfer proposal dated 4.3.2010 to Gondia was to a non-existent post, indicating mala fides. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's finding. (Paras 4-5)
C) Service Law - Transfer - Posting at Headquarters - The Tribunal directed that the respondent be posted at Mumbai in the interest of justice, considering the earlier direction and the circumstances. The High Court found no perversity in this direction. (Para 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order dated 31st March 2010 posting the respondent to Dhule was in compliance with the earlier Tribunal order dated 13th January 2010 directing posting in Group B, and whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the transfer order and directing posting at Mumbai.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal's order dated 29th July 2010 (modified on 6th September 2010) which set aside the transfer order dated 31st March 2010 and directed the respondent's posting at Mumbai. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Transfer order must comply with earlier tribunal direction
- Transfer order must be to an existing post
- Transfer order must not be mala fide
- Tribunal can modify its order to ensure compliance
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (10) 57
Writ Petition No.7614 of 2010
B. H. Marlapalle, U. D. Salvi
Mr. Samir Patil (AGP for petitioners), Mr. Sudhir Talsania i/b Mr. Anilkumar Joshi (for respondent)
The State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Finance Department; The Commissioner of Sales-Tax; The Additional Commissioner (Establishment), Sales Tax
Shri Deepak Babudas Vaishnav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging an order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in a service transfer dispute.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (State of Maharashtra and its officers) sought to quash the Tribunal's order dated 29th July 2010 (modified on 6th September 2010) which set aside the transfer order of the respondent and directed his posting at Mumbai.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Tribunal's order setting aside the transfer order dated 31st March 2010 posting the respondent to Dhule and directing his posting at Mumbai.
Previous Decisions
The Tribunal in O.A. No.1275 of 2009 on 13th January 2010 directed the respondents to grant an appropriate posting in Group B within two weeks. The respondent was subsequently transferred to Dhule on 31st March 2010. The respondent then filed O.A. No.309 of 2010 challenging that transfer, which was allowed by the impugned order.
Issues
Whether the transfer order dated 31st March 2010 was in compliance with the earlier Tribunal order dated 13th January 2010?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the transfer order and directing posting at Mumbai?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the transfer order was in compliance with the earlier Tribunal order and that the Tribunal's subsequent order was perverse.
The respondent argued that the transfer was mala fide, intended to harass him, and that the earlier proposal to transfer him to Gondia was to a non-existent post.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal's order was not perverse and did not warrant interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. The transfer order was not in compliance with the earlier Tribunal direction and was set aside. The direction to post the respondent at Mumbai was justified in the circumstances.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution impugns the order dated 29th July, 2010 and modified subsequently on 6th September, 2010 passed in O.A. No.309 of 2010 by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The respondent filed O.A. No.1275 of 2009 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, which was allowed on 13th January 2010 directing posting in Group B. The order was not implemented, leading to Contempt Application No.30 of 2010. On 31st March 2010, the respondent was transferred to Dhule. He then filed O.A. No.309 of 2010 on 6th April 2010 challenging the transfer. The Tribunal allowed O.A. No.309 of 2010 on 29th July 2010 (modified on 6th September 2010) setting aside the transfer and directing posting at Mumbai. The State filed the present writ petition on 5th October 2010.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Maharashtra Transfer Act, 2005:
