HC refuses to interfere with govt decision to allow transfer of 15% staff
It was argued that if 15% of the staff was transferred in terms of the GR, it would result in a chaotic situation, as the government administration is grappling with a healthcare emergency because of the raging coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outbreak.Updated: Jul 23, 2020 15:08 IST
An Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court (HC) on Wednesday refused to interfere with a government resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra general administration department allowing the transfer of 15% of its staff.
“The petitioner cannot claim a much less vested right, to assail the GR permitting 15% of its employees to be transferred,” said the two-member HC division bench, comprising Justices SV Gangapurwala and RG Avachat, while dismissing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by Sandip Waisal, an Aurangabad-based social worker.
“It is for the authorities to consider the viability and feasibility of the transfers,” the bench clarified, adding that if any employee is prejudicially affected by the GR, then that employee has the right to approach the appropriate court.
Waisal had moved HC claiming that if the GR was allowed to be implemented it would result in the disruption of government services and as a result, adversely affect the public.
It was argued, on his behalf, that if 15% of the staff was transferred in terms of the GR, it would result in a chaotic situation, as the government administration is grappling with a healthcare emergency because of the raging coronavirus disease (Covid-19) outbreak.
HC, however, refused to entertain the PIL.
It said if the petitioner is deprived of the legitimate services or is not in a position to get documents required by him or his proposals are unattended, then he may seek redressal about his grievance with regard to his work or his claim not being attended by the authorities, but without such a cause of action, the plea cannot be entertained.
The policy decision has been taken by the Maharashtra government and an affected person may have the right to assail the GR, but not the petitioner, said HC.
“The petitioner is unconcerned with the transfer of the employees,” it added while dismissing the PIL.