Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende, was serving as Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune. He was transferred to the post of Joint Director of Town Planning (Valuation), Pune, by an order dated 30th June 2016. The petitioner challenged this transfer order by filing Writ Petition No. 8859 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2016, alleging that the transfer was malafide and in violation of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The State of Maharashtra also filed Writ Petition No. 9291 of 2016 challenging an interim order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal staying the transfer. The High Court considered the submissions of the parties and examined the relevant provisions of the Act and the transfer policy. The court held that transfer is an incident of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee in public interest. The court found that the allegations of malafides were not supported by concrete evidence and that the transfer order was issued in compliance with the statutory provisions. The court also held that the transfer policy does not confer any vested right on an employee and the government can deviate from it in public interest. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the petitioner and allowed the writ petition filed by the State, setting aside the interim order of the Tribunal.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Transfer - Power of Transfer - Transfer is an incident of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee in public interest. Courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are malafide or in violation of statutory rules. (Paras 10-15)
B) Service Law - Transfer - Malafides - Allegations of malafides must be supported by concrete evidence. Mere allegations without proof are not sufficient to invalidate a transfer order. (Paras 16-20)
C) Service Law - Transfer - Violation of Transfer Policy - The transfer policy does not confer any vested right on an employee. The government can deviate from the policy in public interest. (Paras 21-25)
D) Service Law - Transfer - Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 - The transfer order was issued in compliance with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder. (Paras 26-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner from the post of Director of Town Planning to Joint Director of Town Planning (Valuation) is legal and valid, and whether the same is vitiated by malafides or in violation of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed Writ Petition No. 8859 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2016 filed by the petitioner, and allowed Writ Petition No. 9291 of 2016 filed by the State, setting aside the interim order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Law Points
- Transfer is an incident of service
- Courts cannot interfere with transfer orders unless malafide or in violation of statutory rules
- Transfer policy does not confer any vested right
- Public interest is paramount in transfer decisions
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (11) 101
Writ Petition No. 8859 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2016, Writ Petition No. 9291 of 2016
Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, M.S. Karnik
Mr. Rafiq Dada, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate Mr. N.V. Bandiwadekar, Mr. Sagar Mane, Mr. Kirankumar Phakade, Mr. Amit Mane, Mr. Yashwant Dhanegare i/by Mr. Bhushan A. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8859/2016 and Writ Petition No. 8860/2016 and respondent No.2 in Writ Petition No. 9291/2016; Mr. Ravi Kadam, Senior Advocate along with Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior Advocate, Mr. S.B. Talekar, Mr. Sandeep Marne i/by Mr. Sidheshwar N. Biradar, Advocate for the respondent No.1; Mr. A.B. Vagyani, Government Pleader along with Mr. O.M. Kulkarni, AAGP for the State/petitioner in Writ Petition No. 9291/2016 and respondents No.2 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 8859/2016 and Writ Petition No. 8860/2016
Shri Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende
Shri Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure, The State of Maharashtra, The Additional Chief Secretary (Service), General Administration Department, The Secretary in Charge of Desk 16B, General Administration Department
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging a transfer order of a government officer and a writ petition by the State challenging an interim order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the transfer order dated 30th June 2016 transferring him from the post of Director of Town Planning to Joint Director of Town Planning (Valuation). The State sought setting aside of the interim order of the Tribunal staying the transfer.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleged that the transfer was malafide and in violation of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. The State contended that the Tribunal erred in granting interim stay.
Previous Decisions
The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal had passed an interim order staying the transfer order, which was challenged by the State in Writ Petition No. 9291 of 2016.
Issues
Whether the transfer order of the petitioner is legal and valid?
Whether the transfer order is vitiated by malafides?
Whether the transfer order violates the provisions of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the transfer was malafide and in violation of the transfer policy and the Act.
The State argued that the transfer was in public interest and in compliance with the Act and rules.
Ratio Decidendi
Transfer is an incident of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee in public interest. Courts should not interfere with transfer orders unless they are malafide or in violation of statutory rules. The transfer policy does not confer any vested right on an employee.
Judgment Excerpts
Transfer is an incident of service and the employer has the right to transfer an employee in public interest.
Allegations of malafides must be supported by concrete evidence.
The transfer policy does not confer any vested right on an employee.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 8859 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 8860 of 2016 before the High Court challenging the transfer order. The State filed Writ Petition No. 9291 of 2016 challenging the interim order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. All three petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005:
