Dismissed

V Ramanaiah Chowdary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC5 Feb 2024WA/103/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court writ appeal against rejection of a challenge to a revised transfer order moving a government employee to a neighbouring district. The Division Bench found no prejudice or hardship, held the cut-off date does not bar administrative transfers, rejected the appeal and permitted a representation for another suitable posting.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal rejected; liberty granted to make representation for other suitable place within 15 days, to be disposed of within three weeks.

V Ramanaiah Chowdary Vs The State of Andhra… — Service and Employment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶3

AND

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶5

W.A. No. 103 of 2024

¶6

JUDGMENT: - (per Hon’ble Sri Justice G.Narendar)

¶7

Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant; the

¶8

learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 – private party.

¶9

The Petitioner is the Appellant in this Intra-Court Appeal being aggrieved by the Order of the learned Single Judge, rejecting his petition challenging the revised transfer order.

¶10

The admitted facts are that, the Petitioner is in government service and not just the maximum period, he is said to have spent his entire career in Chittoor district. Now, by the original order of transfer, he was shifted to a neighboring taluk and by the subsequent & modified transfer order he has been transferred to the neighboring district.

¶11

¶12

Admittedly, the place to which he has been transferred is well connected with all modes of transport and communications.

¶13

If viewed in the backdrop of the fact that he has spent entire career in one district and is merely sent to a neighboring and well connected district, this Court perceives no prejudice or hardship that would be caused by the revised transfer order. The last cut-off date should not deter the employer from carrying out transfers if the same is in aid of and in the interest of the administration.

¶14

The fact that the Appellant has spent his entire career in one district by itself is a proof of his resourcefulness and even now the transfer is not to some faraway place, but to a place, which is said to be 80 kilometers from his present place of office.

¶15

In that view of the matter, we do not find any error, which would warrant interference, with the well reasoned order of the learned Single Judge.

¶16

The Writ Appeal being devoid of merits, is accordingly, rejected . There shall be no order as to costs.

¶17

¶18

The rejection of Writ Appeal will not be a hurdle for the Petitioner to make a representation to the official Respondents for any other suitable place. If such representation is made within 15 days from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of within three [03] weeks thereafter.

¶19

1. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶20

shall stand closed.

¶21

_________________ G.NARENDAR , J

¶22

_____________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J

¶23

Date: 06.02.2024 Sm../..

¶24

¶25

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

¶26

AND

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

¶28

W.A. No. 103 of 2024

¶29

Date: 06.02.2024

¶30

Sm.

V Ramanaiah Chowdary v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V Ramanaiah Chowdary v. The 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

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Indla Siva Kumar Vs the Deputy Assistant Commissioner

G.Veera Swamy, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

B Venkata Subbamma Vs Chief Secretary Secondary School Education

Vemuri Ratna Giri Prasad Vs the State of Ap

T.S.V.S.N. Raju, Vs The Union of India

Dr N Kalpalatha Vs the State of Ap