Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of division bench of this Court in the case of Atul S/o. Vyankatesh Deshpande Vs District Judge and others 2005 (1) Mah. L.R. 653 to submit that even after transfer of an employee from one judicial district to another judicial district on his request, if he sufers break in service, which results in interruption in service on account of lower placement in the transferee judicial district, the break in his service can be condoned and his last pay drawn in the ( 6 ) wp10978.17 district where he was serving before transfer can be protected and therefore according to learned counsel, break in service of the petitioner can be condoned and his pay can be protected. The petitioner in the said case was a clerk working in the District Court, Osmanabad. He had fled the petition initially to challenge the order of termination dated 12.05.1995 passed by the learned District Judge, Osmanabad. This termination took place because of the transfer of the petitioner from district Jalgaon to Osmanabad district sought by the petitioner himself. The petitioner was working earlier in the District Court at Jalgaon. He was selected as clerk on 03.05.1986 and was given an appointment on 01.06.1986. He passed the Lower Standard Departmental Examination on 05.07.1990. It is happened that that petitioner's father who was residing at Osmanabad, passed away due to cancer and his mother was sick sufering from paralysis. He, therefore, sought transfer to Osmanabad sometime in April, 1993. As per the condition of transfer recorded in the Government Resolution dated 19.09.1975, which formed part of the requirements for such transfers, the original appointment of the Government servant had to be in conformity with the Recruitment Rules and he had to put in not less than three years in the earlier cadre. The petitioner was fulflling ( 7 ) wp10978.17 those conditions. On account of his transfer in the District Court, Osmanabad, the petitioner was placed at serial No.163 of the seniority list. It is the case of the petitioner that the date of his continuous ofciation should be reckoned from 1986 and if that date is taken into consideration, he should have been placed at serial No.126 after the incumbent at serial No.125. However, on account of lower placement in the seniority list, the petitioner sufered break in service and it resulted in interruption in his service from 05.06.1995 to 08.10.1995. It is at that stage that being aggrieved by the resultant termination that the petitioner fled the writ petition and the same was later on admitted.