Pravin Ashok Bhadak vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Additional Chief Secretary And Others

Original PDF →

WP/12394/2024HC BombayGSTCNR HCBM03042651202423 July 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R. G. AVACHAT,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NEERAJ P. DHOTE3 pages

AI SummaryDismissed

Facts

The Petitioner, Pravin Ashok Bhadak, filed a Transfer Application (TA No. 25 of 2024) before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) challenging the action of Respondent No. 2 in not relieving him to join a transferred post at Dhule. The Petitioner sought interim relief, which was rejected by the MAT on 25.07.2024. Subsequently, the MAT disposed of the Transfer Application on 21.10.2024. The Petitioner then approached the High Court. The Petitioner's advocate stated this was the fifth round of litigation and that a previous reply from the State was in his favour. The Petitioner sought to set aside the MAT's order and be relieved to join at the transferred place.

Held

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. The Court noted the observations of the learned Tribunal in paragraphs 18 and 19 of its final order. The Tribunal had not disapproved the Petitioner's transfer from the GST Office Kalyan, but rather the transfer to Dhule. The Tribunal had previously observed that it would be open for the respondents to give the Petitioner posting at a place other than Dhule. The Petitioner had initially requested transfer to Dhule, with options for Malegaon, Nandurbar, and Jalgaon. The Tribunal suggested that if the Petitioner requested a transfer to any of these alternative places (except Dhule), the respondents were not precluded from favourably considering such a request. The High Court found no reason to interfere with this order and directed that if the Petitioner makes any representation pursuant to the Tribunal's observations, the Competent Authority/Respondents shall consider it within two weeks of receipt.

Key Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 21.10.2024, which disposed of the Petitioner's Transfer Application No. 25 of 2024. Petitioner's contention: The Petitioner argued that the writ petition should be allowed, setting aside the impugned order of the learned Tribunal. He further prayed for interim relief, directing the Respondents to relieve him to join his duties at the transferred place. The Petitioner's advocate highlighted that this was the fifth round of litigation and that a previous reply filed by the State was in his favour. Revenue/State's contention: The learned AGP for the State opposed the petition.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances

1 906WP12394.2024.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 906 WRIT PETITION NO. 12394 OF 2024 Pravin Ashok Bhadak VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Additional Chief Secretary And Others ... Mr. Sanket N. Suryawanshi - Advocate for the Petitioner Mrs. Vaishali S. Chaudhari - AGP for State ... CORAM : R. G. AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2025 PER COURT: - 1. The Petitioner had approached the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Transfer Application No. 25 of 2024, challenging the action of Respondent No. 2, in not relieving him to join at the transferred place, at Dhule. The Petitioner had prayed for interim relief before the learned Tribunal, however, the request for grant of interim relief came to be rejected by the order dated 25.07.2024. Subsequently, the said Transfer Application came to be disposed off by order dated 21.10.2024. Hence, the Petitioner has approached this Court. 2. According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioner, this is the fifth round of litigation and, in the previous round, the reply filed by 2025:BHC-AUG:20048-DB 2 906WP12394.2024.odt the State was in favour of the Petitioner. He submits that the Petition be allowed by setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, and that, by way of interim relief, the Respondents be directed that the Petitioner be relieved so as to join duties at the transferred place. 3. The Petition is opposed by the learned AGP. 4. The learned Tribunal, in paragraph nos. 18 and 19 of the Final Order, observed as under : - “18. It has to be, however, further stated that this Tribunal has not disapproved the transfer of the present applicant from GST Office Kalyan, the disapproval is to the transfer of the applicant at Dhule. In the interim order passed by this Tribunal it has been specifically observed that it would be open for the respondents to give posting tot respondent no. 3 i.e. present applicant at some place other than Dhule. In the representation dated 08-03-2023 submitted by the applicant in response to which the order of transfer dated 27-07-2023 came to be issued, the applicant had prayed for his transfer at the first instance at Dhule and has also given option of Malegaon, Nandurbar and Jalgaon. 19. In the circumstances, the applicant may still request for his transfer at any of the aforesaid places, except Dhule, which would certainly be a solace for the applicant as he would be able to take care of his old aged ailing parents as well as take care of the education of his children even by discharging his duties at the said place. If any such request is made by the applicant, respondents are not precluded from favourably considering the same. Present T.A. No. 25/2024, thus, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms without any order as to costs.” 5. In view of the above order of the learned Tribunal, the Petitioner can make a request to the Competent Authority, and if any 3 906WP12394.2024.odt such request is made, the Competent Authority (Respondents) are not precluded from favourably considering the same. In this background, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the impugned order and

hence, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER [i] The Writ Petition is dismissed. [ii] In the event the Petitioner makes any Representation pursuant to the observations of the learned Tribunal, the Competent Authority / Respondents shall consider the same, as observed by the learned Tribunal, within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of such Representation. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE] [R. G. AVACHAT] JUDGE

JUDGE SG Punde Signed by: Sandeep Gulabrao Punde Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 30/07/2025 18:14:14

Reproduced from the public record of the Bombay High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.