Maharashtra: MAT sets precedent in couple transfer Case

MAT’s decision will likely influence similar cases involving state government employees. Representation Pic

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 city/district state to avoid hardship or family separation. MAT's decision will likely influence similar cases involving state government employees.

The case
The applicant R R Yadav, a 46-year-old 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, Solapur.

Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal, the applicant's lawyer

"The transfer was in contravention of policy guidelines given by the General Administration Department (GAD), Government of Maharashtra, dated April 9, 2018," said Advocate Rajeshwar Panchal, who is representing Yadav.

Also Read: Here's how a Mumbai-based team rescued a mentally ill pregnant woman

Requested for Retaining post
Advocate Panchal said, "Yadav 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 request."

Discrimination
Advocate Panchal, further argued that many of Yadav's colleagues working as inspectors had been given extensions of tenure of one year, however for reasons not known, Yadav's request was not considered; indicating discrimination by the charity commissioner.

Other side
Advocate A J Chougule, representing the respondents said, "The subsequent representation made by Yadav had been securely placed along with such other requests for due consideration in subsequent meetings of CSB (Civil Services Board)," held on May 18, 2023.

CSB meeting outcome
Advocate Chougule, further said, "During 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 Yadav."

"CSB had also recorded that Yadav's 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 Solapur," Advocate Chogule added.

On the extension of tenure
The 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 transfer.

The order
Debashish 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 servants.

The commissioner was instructed to make a decision within two weeks regarding Yadav's transfer to an available inspector position in any district within the Mumbai Metropolitan Region, with no associated costs.

Advocate speak
Satisfied with the order Advocate Panchal said, "The 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 life.

The 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 example."