20 June 2025 Employee Related >> Corporate Law  

The Bombay High Court has dismissed two writ petitions filed by judicial employees challenging their transfer orders in the matter of Kiran Ramesh Shinde v/s State of Maharashtra, General Administrative Department, Mumbai & Other. The petitioners, both employed in the Kolhapur Labour/Industrial Court, were transferred to Sangli and Solapur, respectively, via an order dated May 24, 2024. They argued that their transfers were premature, as they had only served seven months as Class III Bailiffs and had not completed the mandatory five-year tenure for Class III employees as per the Government Resolution (GR) dated April 9, 2018. They also contended that the transfer process disregarded personal grievances and violated the Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005 ("Transfer Act").

The petitioners asserted that the respondents failed to follow proper transfer protocols, such as publishing lists of eligible employees in January and adhering to Rule No. 4 of the Transfer Act. They claimed the transfer orders were abrupt, lacked written reasons, and might have been punitive, issued without due process or prior notice, despite their exemplary service records.

Conversely, the respondents maintained that the transfers were part of a routine annual general transfer process involving thirteen other employees, conducted in accordance with the GR dated February 12, 1992, which permits transfers of employees who have completed three to five years in the "Zilla" (district), not necessarily in a specific post. They highlighted that the petitioners had failed to submit the required forms to avoid transfer and that the Vacation Bench had already refused to stay the transfer order, directing the petitioners to report to their new posts.

The respondents also revealed that discreet inquiries into complaints against the petitioners, alleging misbehavior with advocates and disregard for judicial officers' directions, led to the rejection of their representations. They argued that the transfers were an administrative decision taken in the normal course, in consonance with relevant circulars and GRs, and not a punitive action. They further stated that the Transfer Act, 2005, primarily governs government employees and does not apply mutatis mutandis to judicial employees, who are governed by separate administrative rules. Even if the Act were applicable, Section 4(5) allows for transfers before the completion of tenure with recorded reasons and prior approval.

The High Court concurred with the respondents, finding that the petitions lacked merit. The court emphasized that the transfers were annual and administrative, not mid-term as alleged by the petitioners. It noted that despite complaints against the petitioners, their transfers were for administrative convenience and within the region, not as a direct punishment. The court clarified that the Transfer Act, 2005, does not apply to judicial employees and that the argument regarding a mandatory three-year tenure was untenable. The court also observed that the petitioners had been posted in the Labour Court for over ten years in different capacities, which could not be overlooked given the complaints.

Ultimately, the High Court criticized the petitioners' "pedantic and defiant attitude" and the "unwarranted arrogance" in their rejoinder affidavit, deeming such conduct unbecoming of judicial employees. The court concluded that the transfers were a reasonable administrative measure to maintain discipline within the judicial establishment and prevent a harsher course of action. Thus, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned transfer orders and dismissed the petitions.