HC directs 21 PIs to join transferred postings out of Mumbai

The state government claimed that the Tribunal had erred in granting interim relief to the 21 officers based on their personal difficulties and the same can not have override the public interest.

A total 22 officers were granted relief by MAT through an October 23 order of chairperson Justice Mridula Bhatkar on grounds of “genuine domestic difficulties, various ailments of family members, physical difficulties and those whose children are studying in 10th & 12th standard, who would otherwise face hardship.

In respect to one of the PI, who had got an interim relief due to a closed relative suffering cancer, the vacation bench of Justices Sandeep V Marne and Manjusha A Deshpande said that he shall make an application for his retention before the Police Establishment Board-2 (PEB-2) by October 31 and same shall be decided by the said competent authority it within four working days.

It had initially noted that the provisions of 22 N (2) of the Maharashtra Police Act vest necessary jurisdiction in favour of competent authority to make mid term transfer in public interest and in case of administrative exigencies.

Therefore, the HC noted that the expression ‘competent authority’ is the Police Establishment Board-2 (PEB) for police personnel up to rank of PI for transfer out of respective commissionerate, range or specialised agency.

“Till the decision on his representation, he shall be retained at the current posting. However, if his application is rejected, he shall join the transferred place,” the bench noted in its order.

In light of a statement made by lawyers representing the 21 PIs, the bench directed,  “Accordingly, 21 PIs, whose names are reflected in para 25 (K) of MAT order shall forthwith report to their transferred places.”

Granting interim relief to 22 officers, the MAT through its chairperson Justice Mridula Bhatkar had on October 23 directed the other 90 officers to report at their respective headquarters of transferred postings on October 26.

However, posting the next hearing on November 27, the Tribunal had allowed the 91 officers to retain their service quarters till their pleas before it were finally decided.

The police officers had challenged the October 4 order of Mumbai Police issued for transferring them as per EC guidelines. The EC rules provide that any officer who has served in the same district for three out of four years should be transferred out so that they don’t exert any influence in the polling process.

However, the aggrieved officers had claimed that many PIs who had completed three years in the Commissionerate were not transferred and the state government had adopted ‘pick and choose policy’ while issuing the October 4 transfer order.