MADHUSUDAN DHARSHIBHAI TANK Vs. A RAJIV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Service of Rule is waived by ld. counsel Ms.Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s Thakkar Associates for the respondents.

(2.) I have heard ld. Senior Counsel Mr. J.R. Nanavati for ld. Counsel Mr. A.R.Thakkar for the petitioner and ld. counsel Ms. Sangeeta Pahwa for M/s Thakkar Associates for the respondents. By consent of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) The petitioner is an Accountant serving with Sainik School, Balachhadi of Jamnagar district and he has been transferred to Sainik School situated at Kunjpura -Karnal in the State of Haryana. It is contended that impugned order of transfer is arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same is issued contrary to the contract of service and in violation of rules applicable to the employees serving in Sainik School. Malice is also alleged by the petitioner. It is contended that with a view to take revenge against the petitioner as he has agitated the dispute in the service against the management before the Court, his transfer is made. According to the petitioner, he was appointed as an Accountant in SAINIK SCHOOL, Balachhadi in the year 1981 and thereafter because of some dispute with the Principal Wing Commander Mr. M. Anwar, he was dragged to the departmental proceedings. At the end of departmental proceedings, the petitioner was removed from the service in the month of December, 1988. The order of removaldismissal was challenged by the petitioner by filing Spl.C.A. No. 8233/88 and the same ultimately was allowed vide order dated 4.2.2000 and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages and with all other consequential benefits. L.P.A. No. 221/2000 preferred by the School Management also was dismissed. According to the petitioner, his success in litigating and reinstatement as an Accountant in the same School was pinch of salt to management and so it acted malafide and transferred him to a very distant place where he has to serve only for about 2 years. The petitioner has submitted that he is to retire on 31.7.2003 at the age of 55 years. It is however, clarified that the petitioner can get extension in service as per Rule 5.30, but the petitioner does not intend to get extension and want to retire at the age of 55 years.