Bombay High Court
State Of Mah Mumbai vs Shankar Janardhan Paidlewar Nagpur on 7 June, 2018
Author: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Bench: B.P. Dharmadhikari
Judgment wp3973.04
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3973 OF 2004.
1. State of Maharashtra,
through the Secretary, Public
Works Department, Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 32.
2. Superintending Engineer,
Special Project Circle,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
3. Executive Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Arvi, District Wardha.
4. Chief Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Regional Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS.
VERSUS
Shankar s/o Janardhan Paidlewar,
Aged about 47 years, Occ - Service,
resident of Mohan Nagar, Text Line,
Nagpur, Distirct Nagpur. ... RESPONDENT
.
---------------------------------
Shri P.S. Tembhare, A.G.P. for Petitioners.
Shri S.P. Palshikar, Advocate for the Respondent.
----------------------------------
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:55:38 :::
Judgment wp3973.04
2
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI
AND Z.A. HAQ, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 07, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) :
Heard Shri P.S. Tembhare, learned A.G.P. for petitioners - State and Shri V.G. Palshikar, learned Counsel for respondent - employee.
2. Facts show that by order dated 20.12.2002, respondent employee was transferred to Maharashtra Engineering Research Institute, Nashik. Accordingly, he joined in the Branch office of Highway Research Division No.2 at Nagpur. He was then transferred on 16.06.2003, to the Special Project Circle, Nagpur by petitioner no.2. Office of petitioner no.2 was closed down w.e.f. 30.06.2003, and present respondent - employee was not given detail posting order. The office of Highway Research Division No.2, Nagpur relieved him on 30.06.2003. He also handed over the charge accordingly.
3. It is an admitted position that thereafter he had gone to ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:55:38 ::: Judgment wp3973.04 3 report and join the duties in the office of petitioner no.2 namely Special Project Circle on 01.07.2003. Said petitioner did not permit him to join. Petitioner no.2 claimed that the employee was given direction to join at Arvi. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has found that no such direction in writing was served upon the employee. The order dated 27.06.2003, passed in furtherance of order of transfer dated 16.06.2003, posted him at Arvi. The employee before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal claimed that this order, posting him at Arvi, was served upon him on 12.01.2004.
4. Perusal of judgment dated 02.04.2004, delivered by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.52/2004, shows failure on the part of petitioners to prove that the employee did not obey the order of transfer for period from 01.07.2003 to 12.01.2004. The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has concluded that he was not allowed to join at Nagpur on 01.07.2003 and after receipt of the communication dated 12.01.2004, which he received on 13.01.2004, he could have joined at some place.
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:55:38 :::
Judgment wp3973.04 4
5. Thus, on 13.01.2004, respondent - employee got posting order dated 27.06.2003, by which he was transferred to the office of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Arvi. This order was questioned by him before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal.
6. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal has partly allowed his Original Application. Only direction issued to the employer is to recognize period from 01.07.2003 till 13.01.2004, as compulsory waiting period and release his pay accordingly for that period. Prayer of Respondent - employee for cancellation of posting order dated 27.06.2003, came to be rejected.
7. Learned A.G.P. has attempted to urge that the respondent
- employee being a Sectional Engineer was aware of closure of office, and therefore, ought to have obeyed the directions issued to him and joined at Arvi. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - employee, on the other hand submits that without orders in writing, the respondent - employee cannot be expected to report and join any office. Categorical finding of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that order of transfer/posting dated ::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:55:38 ::: Judgment wp3973.04 5 27.06.2003, was served upon respondent / employee on 13.01.2004 along with letter dated 12.01.2004, is not demonstrated to be incorrect or false. In this situation, we have to accept the submissions / contentions of Shri Palshikar, learned counsel appearing for respondent employee.
8. In view of above discussion, we do not see any jurisdictional error or perversity. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rgd.
::: Uploaded on - 11/06/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 12/06/2018 00:55:38 :::