Union Of India And 3 Others v. Parminder Kaur

- 1 - (WP 7 of 2015) vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 7 OF 2015 Union of India and Ors.

...Petitioners

Vs.

Smt. Parminder Kaur

...Respondent

*********** Mr.Suresh Kumar a/w. Ms. Sangita Yadav for Petitioners Mr.r.R. Shetty for Respondent *********** CORAM : V. M. KANADE & G.S. KULKARNI, J.J.

DATE : APRIL 13, 2015 P.C. :

1.

The Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 7.3.2014. It is submitted that by the said order, the Original Application filed by the Respondent, challenging the transfer on promotion was dismissed. However, on the request made by the Respondent, she was allowed to continue in Mumbai till 30.4.2015 so that her daughter could complete her education in Mumbai. The request made by the Respondent for her retention on the post at Mumbai till 30th April, 2015 instead of June, 2015 was accepted.

2.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that after having dismissed the Original Application filed by the Respondent, the Tribunal could not have granted her extension in view of the circulars dated 8th April, 2011 and 10th April, 1989. 1/2

- 2 - (WP 7 of 2015) 3.

In our view, there is some substance in the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners. However, since the period is almost over, we do not propose to interfere with the direction given in the impugned order which is passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal while exercising our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We further clarify that the said order may not be treated as precedent and the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] [ V. M. KANADE, J.] Vaishali Tikam 2/2