The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And ORS. v. Prashant Pawar

910 wp 10925-19.doc Pradnya Bhogale IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10925 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

... Petitioners Vs.

Prashant Pawar ... Respondent ---- Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for State.

Mr. S.G. Talekar for the respondent.

---- CORAM : RANJIT MORE & M. S. KARNIK, JJ.

DATE : 29th NOVEMBER, 2019.

P. C. :

.

Heard.

2.

The State Government has approached this Court by invoking jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the Tribunal's order dated 05.10.2018 passed in Original Application No.560 of 2018. That order was passed at the instance of respondent under which the Government was directed to consider the options given by the respondent as per the preferences in terms of Stage 5 of the Government Resolution and to pass necessary orders, if necessary, by making certain amendments to certain transfer order passed.

1/2

910 wp 10925-19.doc 3.

Learned AGP relied upon the document at Exhibit 104 which shows the option given by the respondent and submits that the respondent was transferred to place mentioned in the said option form and therefore he should not have made any grievance. As per the Government Resolution it was obligatory for the respondent to give his option and he accordingly gave the same. Nonetheless, his first option was Thane-80. In general transfer this post was kept vacant and respondent was transferred to Thane-91 which was his seventh option. The respondent before transfer was working in difficult area and therefore he gave option for Thane-80 which is not a difficult area. The State Government however did not transfer the respondent in Thane-80 as per the preferences and this post was kept vacant. 4.

Having gone through the impugned order and having considered the rival submissions, we find the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has adopted the correct approach and therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the said order. There is no perversity in the view taken. The petition is without any merit and the same is dismissed. 5.

At this stage, learned AGP submits that sometime may be given to comply the impugned order. We are inclined to accept the request and grant four weeks time to the Government to comply with the impugned order.

[M. S. KARNIK, J.] [RANJIT MORE, J.] 2/2