Shri. Jeevan Krishna Thakre vs. The Chief Executive Officer

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. … Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Grampanchayat, Division Thane. … Respondents. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, R.M.Kolge for the petitioner. S.P.Thorat for respondent No.1. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND R.V.GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 9 th June 2014. P.C. : Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Issue notice to the respondents returnable after three weeks. Court's or Judge's orders In case the petitioner has not been relieved so far, by way of adinterim relief, we direct that the respondents shall maintain statusquo in respect of posting of the petitioner. (R.V.GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S.

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 30 June 2014 One week time is granted for payment of Bhatta. If Bhatta is paid within one week, issue notice to Respondents returnable within seven weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 26/06/2014

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5111 OF 2014 Shri Jeevan Krishna Thakre. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. ... Respondent. Rajesh M. Kolge for the petitioner. Shankar P. Thorat with Karan Thorat for the respondent. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, JJ. DATED : 12th August 2014. P.C. : The petitioner has challenged his transfer order from Kalyan to Murbad. The petitioner's contention is that once the petitioner was transferred from tribal to nontribal area vide order dated 22nd August 2013 by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, there was no reason for the Zilla Parishad authority to transfer him again to the tribal area. Learned counsel submits that the transfer of the petitioner is against the policy adopted by the State in respect of transfer of employees to the tribal and nontribal ares. It is submitted that the petitioner's wife is also serving and therefore the policy of the Government that couple be placed at one station is not followed while transferring the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that this transfer order is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner and his family. It is made with malafide intention and against the policy of the State. The respondent State has filed affidavit of Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Thane. In paras 4, 5 and 6, the deponent has stated as under: "4. I further say that pursuant to the direction and order passed by this Hon'ble Court number of Thane Zilla Parishad employees have been transferred in the adiwasi area. Since right from beginning the present Petitioner did not take the experience in the adiwasi area he is transferred from Kalyan non adiwasi area, to village Panchayat Shirol Shahapur in the adiwasi area. The distance between Kalyan and Shahapur is about 30 km. and therefore there is no reason for the Petitioner to be aggrieved. The Petitioner is relying on the old government policy regarding the transfer order. And on the basis of the said policy the Petitioner is claiming that the Zilla Parishad employee should be in one place for a period of 10 years, however the said policy is changed by the recent government resolution dated 15.5.2014. Pursuant to the said resolution the period of 10 years is minimized and now the said period is from 3 to 5. Now it is compulsory for the employee to have a turn in the adiwasi area. In the year 2013 the Petitioners turn to go at adiwasi was to be implemented, however because of his request he was again shifted at Kalyan immediately and therefore the Petitioner cannot insist in one place. The Petitioner is also insisting that he should be transferred at the area and place where his wife is doing service at Ambernath, however at Ambernath no post is vacant for the Petitioner moreover the Petitioner already had done his service at Ambernath he was doing service for a period of fifteen years right from 12.4.90 till 13.7.2005. Therefore he is not entitled to be posted at Ambernath which is non adiwasi area. After the ambernath the Petitioner has done his duty at Kalyan, Bhiwandi in the non adiwasi area. And therefore it is obligatory on the part of the Petitioner to go at Adiwasi area and he should not insist again for the non adiwasi area. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the petitioner's service career shows that except some brief service in tribal area, he has served only in nontribal areas. Learned counsel submits that on the recommendation of the President of the Thane Zilla Parishad, petitioner's transfer order was cancelled. The policy of the Government is to transfer the employees to tribal areas so that they can provide services to the tribal areas. Learned counsel submits that the administration would, ultimately, suffer if this Court interferes in the transfer order of the petitioner passed by the administration in the larger interest of the tribal people. We have heard both parties and perused the record. We find that the petitioner, in his 15 years of service, has mostly served in nontribal areas and for a very brief period he served in tribal area. In the month of August 2013, when the petitioner was transferred to tribal area he approached the President of Thane Zilla Parishad and on the recommendations of the President his transfer order was cancelled and he was again transferred in nontribal area. The petitioner is discharging his duties as Block Development Officer. It is submitted that the petitioner was relieved from his duties from Kalyan in the month of May 2014. Thereafter the petitioner is on leave and some other officer is holding charge. It is unfortunate that the petitioner is not honouring the transfer order. The petitioner could have joined the transferred post without prejudice to his rights and subject to result of this petition. Taking over all view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain this petition and interfere with the transfer order. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. In view of dismissal of petition, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) Sanjay Nanoskar, P.S..