Dismissed

Sonnayi Nirmala v. the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC21 Nov 2024WA/939/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Appeal challenging a transfer of a Village Revenue Officer from Saripalli Village to a different station within the same mandal. The Court held the transfer was legal as the employee had served over six years at the mandal, violating the five-year continuous stay protection under G.O.Ms.No.75.

What did the court decide?

Writ Appeal rejected; pending interlocutory applications closed; no order as to costs.

Sonnayi Nirmala Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATP

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER^ TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

0
o
m

¶5

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.NARENDAFT AND THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVyi

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO: 939 OF 2024

¶7

Writ Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent to preferred against the order in WP.No.21573 of 2024 dated 30.09.2024 on the file of the High Court.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Sonnayi Nirmala, W/o. Sonnayi Mohan Rao, Aged47 Years, Occ: Village Revenue officer Saripalli Grampanchayat, Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶10

...APPELLANT/WRIT PETITIONER^

¶11

AND

¶12

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rept. by Its Principal Secretary, Finance (HR. I-PL (3. and Policy) Department Secretariat, Velagapudi,

¶13

Guntur District.

¶14

The District Collector and Nodal officer, Visakhapatnam^Districtat Visakhapatnam.

¶15

The Tahsildar, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.

¶16

...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶17

lA NO: 2 OF 2024r

¶18

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the^{circumstances} stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings issued by 2"*^ respondent vide Rc.no.545/2024/Admin.A1 Dated 22.09.2024 in respect of appellants transfers and retain her in present working station, r"

¶19

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI PAMARTHY RATHNAKAR

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶21

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶22

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶23

AND

¶24

HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA

¶25

WRIT APPEAL No.939 of 2024

¶26

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

¶27

Heard Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Government Pleader for Services-I^forthe respondents.

¶28

By this intra-court appeal, the appellant, who is a Village Revenue Officer, is calling in question the order dated^30.09.2024 rendered by the learned single Judge, rejecting the^{writpetition,} W.P.No.21573 of 2024, preferred by her, challenging^hertransfer from Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, to Marripalem^Cluster-15, Seethammadhara Mandal.

¶29

It is seen from the record that prior to her posting at Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, the appellant/writ petitioner was discharging duties in Vepagunta Village, which is in Pendurthi Mandal itself. In all, the appellant/writ petitioner is stated to have remained in Pendurthi Mandal for a period of over six years.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant invites the attention^ofthe Court to Para IV of G.O.Ms.No.75, Finance (HR.I-PLG.& Policy) Department, dated 17.08.2024, which deals with the^{principlesfor} transfers and postings. Guideline 1 of Para IV reads^asunder:

¶31

¶32

“IV. Principles for Transfers and Postings.

¶33

Employees who have completed a period of continuous stay of 5 years at a station as on July, 2024, shall invariably be transferred. For the purpose of transfers, the number of years of service in all cadres/posts^atastation shall be reckoned as the Period of Stay at a station, where Station means a place (City, Town, Village) of actual working and not the office or the institution. Such employees shall exercise preference for stations. ”

¶34

Interpreting the above provision, learned counsel would^submit that the appellant is entitled to a continuous stay of five years in one station i.e., the city, town or village. In the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner has been discharging duties as a Village Revenue Officer attached to the office of the Tahsildar,^Pendurthi Mandal, for a period of over six years. In that view of the matter, the contention that the appellant/writ petitioner has not completed five years of stay in terms of guideline (1) of Para IV^{ofG.O.Ms.No.75} dated 17.08.2024 appears to be misplaced.

¶35

That apart, guideline (2) of Para IV of G.O.Ms.No.75 also permits the transfer of employees who have not completed five years of stay at a station. In that view of the matter and the said guideline having not been called in question, the challenge to the transfer appears to be without legs to stand on. The transfer place is said to be within a reasonable distance, which would involve a journey of

¶36

? i

¶37

¶38

less than one hour. Be that as it may, the appellant/writ petitioner would not be entitled to the protection under guideline (1) of Para IV of G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, in view of the fact^thatshehas served in Pendurthi Mandal for more than six years.

¶39

In that view of the matter, the order of transfer does not warrant any interference and the appeal is devoid of^merits.

¶40

Accordingly, the writ appeal stands rejected. As a^sequel, pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand^closed.There

¶41

shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

Sd/- M.RAMESH BABU //TRUE COPY// DEPUTY REGISTRAR SEC OFFICER

¶43

¶44

¶45

1. One CC to Sri Pamarthy Rathnakar, Advocate [OPUC] 2. Two CCs to GP for Services I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [Oy^]

¶46

Three C.D. Copies.

Cnr

HIGH COURT

DATE0:22/11/2024

JUDGMENT

WA.No.939 of 2024

ANO«^
(3=O 0 2 JAN 2025
Co
Current Section .

¶53

REJECTED THE WRIT APPEAL WITHOUT COSTS

Sonnayi Nirmala v. the Government of Andhra Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonnayi Nirmala v. the Government 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

The Eastern Power District Company Limited Vs Satyam Mohana Rao

The Eastern Power Distribution Company Limited Vs K Narendra

The Principal Commissioner, Vs M/s Vijayakrant Constructions

KorlaRavikumar Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

S Kristappa Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

B Chandrasekhar Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh