Allowed

P Raghuram v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Dec 2019WP/11390/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order via a Writ Petition. Petitioner joined the post after interim order expiry. Court allowed miscellaneous application vacating interim order but granted liberty to file representation before respondent to ventilate grievances.

What did the court decide?

IA No.3 of 2019 allowed vacating interim order dated 16.08.2019; liberty granted to file representation before second respondent.

P Raghuram Vs State of Andhra Pradesh — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶2

IA No.3 of 2019 in / and Writ Petition No.11390 of 2019

¶3

Order :

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of the first respondent in transferring and posting the unofficial respondent in the place of the petitioner vide G.O.Rt.No.47, Housing (Vig.Cell) Department, dated 13.08.2019, as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Assistant Engineer on 17.08.1983 and presently he is working as Executive Engineer in Vizianagaram Division, Vizianagaram district from 19.06.2017; as per the guidelines issued by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.45 dated 24.06.2019 transfers shall be effected for the employees who have completed five years of service at a station and the ban on transfers was relaxed from 25^th June 2019 to 10^th July 2019; the ban on transfers came into force with effect from 11.07.2019; while so, during the ban period, the first respondent issued the impugned GO transferring and posting the unofficial respondent in the place of the petitioner at Vizianagaram and directed the petitioner to report to Head Office, AP State Housing Corporation Limited at Tadepalli; questioning the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

¶6

When the matter is taken up for hearing, both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submits that as the interim order granted by this Court on 16.08.2019 was not extended further, the petitioner joined in the post to which he was transferred. In view of the same, IA No.3 of 2019 is allowed vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 16.08.2019.

¶7

¶8

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be permitted to file a representation before the second respondent ventilating his grievance.

¶9

In the circumstances, liberty is given to the petitioner to file a representation before the second respondent ventilating his grievance and if such representation is filed by the petitioner, the second respondent is directed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶10

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no

¶11

order as to costs.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in

¶13

this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶14

_____________________________ KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, J.

¶15

Date: 17.12.2019 Nsr

¶16

¶17

THE HON’BLE SMT JUSTICE KONGARA VIJAYA LAKSHMI

¶18

IA No.3 of 2019 in / and Writ Petition No.11390 of 2019

¶19

Date: 17.12.2019

¶20

Nsr

P Raghuram v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P Raghuram v. State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Alanka Varalaxmi and another Vs the Andhra Pradesh Power Generation Corp and 3 Others

M. Rama Rao, Vs The Director

M.D. Amrutha Raj, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Kokkiligadda Rajeev Singh Vs The state of Andhra Pradesh

K. Ramakrishna Rao, Vs The A.P. State Housing Corporation Ltd.

H Govindu Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh