High Court
Facts
919wp7942-25group IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD919 WRIT PETITION NO. 7942 OF 2025Sangita Mhasu Gunjal And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6935 OF 2025Sharad Baburao Gawade And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6475 OF 2025Mahendra Babu Wanjari And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5676 OF 2025Rajaram Bhagu Rathod And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 5961 OF 2025Sunita Nanasaheb DholeVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 6763 OF 2025Kiran Mohan AgrawalVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary And OthersWITHWRIT PETITION NO. 7236 OF 2025Surekha Shantaram Bhilmala And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersPage 1 of 9 919wp7942-25groupANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6936 OF 2025Kisan Bhikchand Salunke And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6866 OF 2025Khanderao Mansaram Pawar And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6950 OF 2025Gajanan Vishram Kakade And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6959 OF 2025Vishnu Kacharu Bhandare And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6949 OF 2025Suresh Sitaram Sonawane And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6934 OF 2025Vishal Bhimrao SableVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And OthersANDWRIT PETITION NO. 6937 OF 2025Madhukar Uttam Gujar And OthersVERSUSThe State Of Maharashtra And Others•Mrs. Suvarna Zaware Patil, Advocate for petitioners in WP/7942/2025Page 2 of 9
Legal Reasoning
919wp7942-25groupis to be counted. As a matter of fact, in the present petitions, suchdeclarations of difficult areas were made in the months ofJune/July/August, 2022 and therefore, by 31.05.2025, none of thepetitioners completed the mandatory requirement of three years ofservice in difficult areas to qualify for the benefit of the saidGovernment Resolution. It is submitted that the petitioners would beeligible in the next year and, therefore, it cannot be said that they havesuffered any injustice.8.We have considered the rival submissions and we find that therelevant Clauses of the Government Resolutions dated 07.04.2021 and18.06.2024, which are more or less identical, indicate that the cut offdate for counting the period of three years of service in difficult areasis 31st May of each year. The policy indicates that those employeeswho have completed three years of service in difficult areas on or before31st May of the particular year in which they are applying for transfer,would be eligible for the benefit of the said Government Resolutions.We are also of the opinion that the point in time, when the service ofthe employees in difficult areas is to be counted, ought to be the date ofdeclaration of such areas as difficult areas by the CompetentCommittees. It would be inappropriate to proceed on the basis that theemployees could be said to be serving in difficult areas prior to the dateon which the areas are declared as difficult areas, as there would be nological point of reference for calculating the mandatory period of threeyears of service in difficult areas for the benefit of said transfer policy.Page 6 of 9 919wp7942-25group9.It is undisputed that in these cases, the difficult areas wereidentified and so declared in the months of June, July and August,2022. The petitioners have been serving in such areas. Since, suchareas were declared as difficult areas only in June/July/August, 2022,by 31st May, 2025, none of the petitioners have completed the periodof three years of service in difficult areas. As a consequence, the Portalwould not be able to accept the applications of the petitioners and theywould consequently not be able to participate on the basis that thetransfer policy manifested in the said Government Resolutions inures totheir benefit. In such a situation, the petitioners would be eligible onlyin the next year.10.In writ jurisdiction, this court cannot hold in favour of thepetitioners, as it would amount to this Court, by a judicial order,declaring certain areas as difficult areas prior in point of time beforethe empowered Committees of the respective Zilla Parishads gave suchdeclarations. Such declarations are obviously based on empirical dataand therefore, it would not be appropriate for this court, under Article226 of the Constitution of India to declare such difficult areas from anydate prior in point of time. Hence, no case is made out by thepetitioners for interference in these petitions.11.Nonetheless, we find that such controversies have been arisingperiodically, due to the fact that the said Committees of respective ZillaParishads constituted under the transfer policy as per said GovernmentResolutions have failed to undertake the exercise of declaration ofPage 7 of 9
Arguments
919wp7942-25group•Mr. Yogesh B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP Nos.6935,6475, and 7236 of 2025•Mr. Sambhaji G. Munde, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP Nos.5676,5961,6866,6936,6950 and 6959 of 2025•Mr. M. G. Deokate, Advocate for the Petitioners in WP Nos.6763,6934, 6949 and 6937 of 2025•Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for the Respondents State•Ms. Sharayu B. Pethkar h/for Ms. Vaishali A. Shinde, Mr. V. C. Patil h/for Mr. U. B Bondar, Mr. P. R. Nangare, Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar•Mr. Maheshkumar S. Sonawane, Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon•Mr. Avinash D. Aghav, Advocate for the Zill Parishad, Ahilyanagar.....CORAM: MANISH PITALE & Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.DATE : 30th July, 2025P. C. : 1.Writ Petition Nos. 6866/2025, 6936/2025, 6950/2025,6959/2025, 6934/2025, 6949/2025 and 6937/2025 are not on board.They are taken on board as the connected writ petitions have beenlisted today for consideration.2.The petitioners, in these petitions, have raised a commongrievance that although, they have completed more than three years ofservice in "difficult areas", they are being deprived of their right tosubmit their options for transfer out of the difficult areas into thegeneral/regular areas of service. 3.The petitioners claim that due to the delay on the part of theCommittee constituted under the relevant Government Resolution forreviewing the list of difficult areas, declarations in that regard in thePage 3 of 9 919wp7942-25groupyear 2022 were made late and for that reason, the petitioners are beingtreated as persons who are yet to complete requisite service of threeyears in difficult areas. It is highlighted that the policy of transfersmanifested in Government Resolutions successively issued by therespondent State in the years 2021 and 2024 consistently provides inAppendix-I that a Committee constituted under Clause 8 thereof isrequired to review the list of difficult areas, every three years in themonth of March. It is submitted that in these cases, the Committees ofrespective Zilla Parishads of Ahilyanagar, Aurangabad (now Chh.Sambhajinagar) and Jalgaon failed to complete review of such list ofdifficult areas in the month of March, 2022. Such review wascompleted in the months of June/July/August, 2022, due to which, theperiod of three years was not completed by 31.05.2025. In this regard,reference is made to various clauses of the relevant GovernmentResolution to impress upon this court that due to the fault of therespective Zilla Parishads, the petitioners have suffered for no fault ontheir part.4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are keen topoint out relevant clauses of the Government Resolution dated07.04.2021, particularly, Clauses 1.4 and 1.7 thereof read with Clause 7of Appendix-I attached to the said Government Resolution.5.It is emphasized that the subsequent Government Resolutiondated 18.06.2024 contains identical provisions and the schemediscernible from the said Government Resolutions is that the aforesaidPage 4 of 9 919wp7942-25groupCommittees of the respective Zilla Parishads chaired by the ChiefExecutive Officers thereof are required to review the list of difficultareas every three years in the month of March. It is further emphasizedthat such review, every three years in the month of March, is necessarybecause the relevant clause specifying the cut off date indicates thatcontinuous service of three years in a difficult area would be countedtill 31st May of every year. Reference is also made to a communicationdated 05.03.2025 issued by the Section Officer of the concernedDepartment of the Respondent State, addressed to all the ChiefExecutive Officers of the Zilla Parishads that such review of list ofdifficult areas ought to be completed by 15th March, so that thenecessary information would be available on the Online Portal throughwhich the transfers are effected.6.It is submitted that due to the recalcitrance and the delay onthe part of the respective Committees of the Zilla Parishads, thepetitioners ought not to suffer. As a matter of fact, the petitioners havecontinuously served in difficult areas for more than three years andtherefore, in this year itself, they ought to be granted the benefit ofsuch transfer policy manifested in the aforementioned GovernmentResolutions.7.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for therespective Zilla Parishads and learned AGP appearing in these petitionssubmit that it is only upon declaration of an area as a difficult area thatthe period of service of the employees, including the petitioners hereinPage 5 of 9
Decision
919wp7942-25groupdifficult areas as per the appendices attached to such GovernmentResolutions. The respective clauses of the said appendices indicate thatthe said Committees of the respective Zilla Parishads are required todeclare such difficult areas every three years in the month of March.The communication dated 05.03.2025, relied upon by the petitioners,indicates that even as per the concerned Department of the State, theCommittees are expected to declare the list of difficult areas by 15th ofMarch, so as to avoid any difficulty and controversy in the matter.12.The learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ Petition No.6763 of 2025 correctly pointed out the Government Resolution dated04.05.2022, which brought about a slight modulation in the transferpolicy, only as a one time measure for the year 2022, to extend the timeperiod for counting three years up to 30th June, 2022.13.Considering the aforesaid documents, while dismissing thepresent petitions, we intend to issue a specific direction to therespondents.14.In view of the above, the writ petitions are dismissed.However, the respective Committees of the Zilla Parishads constitutedunder the aforesaid Government Resolutions, chaired by the ChiefOfficers, are directed that henceforth, the list of difficult areas to bereviewed as per the said Government Resolutions, shall be declared onor before 15th March, of the concerned year, so as to avoid anycontroversy in the future. Page 8 of 9 919wp7942-25group15.Respondent No.1 State is directed to issue an appropriatecommunication to the respective Zilla Parishads to abide by theaforesaid direction.16.Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.17.Needless to say that the respondents authorities are expectedto follow the other stipulations in the aforesaid GovernmentResolutions.( Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( MANISH PITALE, J. )JPChavan Page 9 of 9