Maharashtra: MAT sets precedent in couple transfer Case

The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal MAT recently issued a landmark verdict giving the Charity Commissioner of Maharashtra two weeks to decide on a transfer case The applicant contested the transfer claiming it breached the state government policy allowing couples to work in the citydistrict state to avoid hardship or family separation MATrsquos decision will likely influence similar cases involving state government employeesThe caseThe applicant R R Yadav a 46yearold resident of Koparkhairne Navi Mumbai served as an inspector at the Public Trust Registration Office under the Charity Commissioner Maharashtra State Yadav invoked Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 1985 to contest a transfer order dated May 19 2023 This order relocated him from the Public Trust Registration Office Greater Mumbai to the Public Trust Registration Office SolapurAdvocate Rajeshwar Panchal the applicantrsquos lawyerldquoThe transfer was in contravention of policy guidelines given by the General Administration Department GAD Government of Maharashtra dated April 9 2018rdquo said Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal who is representing YadavAlso Read Herersquos how a Mumbaibased team rescued a mentally ill pregnant womanRequested for Retaining postAdvocate Panchal said ldquoYadav was asked to provide 10 options for general transfers 2023 Yadav brought to the notice of the charity commissioner that his wife served as a head clerk at the central dairy in Aarey Goregaon While submitting his options Yadav requested adherence to the policy guidelines in GAD suggesting joint postings for couples Despite this he was transferred to Solapur without due consideration for his requestrdquoDiscriminationAdvocate Panchal further argued that many of Yadavrsquos colleagues working as inspectors had been given extensions of tenure of one year however for reasons not known Yadavs request was not considered indicating discrimination by the charity commissionerOther sideAdvocate A J Chougule representing the respondents said ldquoThe subsequent representation made by Yadav had been securely placed along with such other requests for due consideration in subsequent meetings of CSB Civil Services Boardrdquo held on May 18 2023CSB meeting outcomeAdvocate Chougule further said ldquoDuring the CSB meeting to recommend posting of inspectors under general transfers 2023 it was noted that Yadav had been working in either the head office or Public Trust Registration Office since 2012 Therefore no further extension of tenure of one year could be granted to YadavrdquoldquoCSB had also recorded that Yadavrsquos request to be posted in the Public Trust Registration Office Thane could not be considered as 14 out of 15 total posts of inspectors had already been filled up and there was no need for more inspectors to work in the Thane office Hence for administrative reasons alone the CSB recommended Yadav to be posted as an inspector in Solapurrdquo Advocate Chogule addedOn the extension of tenureThe reasons recorded by CSB while recommending the extension of tenure of one year to some inspectors serving in the head office of the charity commissioner was that there were 10 vacant posts of inspectors CSB however did not record any specific grounds other than administrative reasons for the transferThe orderDebashish Chakrabarty Member A in response to both parties issued an order highlighting flaws in the transfer order due to arbitrary use of statutory powers Despite this Yadav is advised to submit a new representation to the Charity Commissioner who should consider the judicial observations favouring the alleviation of personal hardships for government servantsThe commissioner was instructed to make a decision within two weeks regarding Yadavs transfer to an available inspector position in any district within the Mumbai Metropolitan Region with no associated costsAdvocate speakSatisfied with the order Advocate Panchal said ldquoThe Government of India as well as state Government have a policy in place to ensure that women working in government offices are not subjected to hardships and deprived of family lifeThe policy is that when wife and husband are working in government departments they should be posted in the same station However it is often seen that such a policy is not strictly followed The present case is such an examplerdquo