DADARAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application No. 944 of 2022 on 26/4/2023 thereby allowing the said Original Application and setting aside the transfer orders issued to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.4.

(3.) The facts in briefrelevantfor considering the challenge are that the petitioner hereinwas serving asChief Officer, Municipal Council Karanja Lad. The respondent no.4 was serving as Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yavatmal. The respondent no.4 was transferred from the said post as Assistant Commissioner (Group-A), Office of the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati for administrative reasons on a vacant post. On account of the vacancy created by the transfer of the respondent no.4, the petitioner came to be transferred to the post of Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Yavatmal. The respondent no.4 being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of transfer filed Original Application No.944 of 2022 under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Initially the challenge was raised only to her order of transfer. The Original Application was then amended and the order of transfer issued to the petitioner also came to be challenged. The Tribunal refused to grant any interim relief on 21/9/2022 and rejected that prayer. Thereafter the Original Application came to be decided on 26/4/2023 and by the said judgment the Tribunal held that the provisions of Sec. 4(4) and (5) of the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act of 2005') had not been followed while issuing the orders of transfer. Further it was held that there was no special/exceptional reason to indicate why the services of the respondent no.4 were liable to be transferred. Being aggrieved, the respondent no.4 before the Tribunal has challenged the said judgment by preferring this writ petition.