HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI (Single Bench — Hon'ble Sri Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam) — Common Order dated 10-04-2025 disposing of seven writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 19730/2016, 20540/2016, 20441/2017, 20863/2016, 20991/2016, 17606/2017 and 19227/2017) instituted by employees' unions/associations of the AP power sector (including the CITU-affiliated United Electricity Employees Union, the A.P. Electricity Employees Muslim Minority Association, the A.P. Power Engineers Association, the Andhra Rastra Power Employees Union and the A.P. Electricity Engineers' Association) challenging the transfer policy guidelines issued by APTRANSCO/the DISCOMs (Proceedings dt. 15-06-2016 and 16-06-2016; Memo dt. 15-06-2016 para 19; T.O.O.(Addl.Secy-Per)Ms.No.450 dt. 17-05-2017; T.O.O.(Addl.Secy.Per)Ms.No.474 dt. 19-06-2017) for not extending to their office bearers the transfer protection/privileges accorded to recognized unions and associations, inter alia as violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 — HELD: transfers are a normal incidence of service and the authority to transfer falls within the exclusive domain of the employer; absent malafide or extraneous considerations or contravention of statutory provisions/employment guidelines, courts should not interfere (relying on N.K. Singh v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 98; State of M.P. v. S.S. Kourav, (1995) 3 SCC 270; Pubi Lombi v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 279; Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar, 1991 Supp (2) SCC 659; Vijay Kumar Saxena v. Dy. Director of Education); recognition under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 confers no absolute immunity from transfer of office bearers; genuine grievances on transfers should be redressed through administrative channels rather than under Article 226; consistent with the Division Bench verdict dated 29.10.2019 in W.A. No. 192 of 2019 (which attained finality) and this Court's earlier disposal of W.P. No. 21717/2016 batch, and noting the respondents' demonstrated inclusivity, the petitioners were granted liberty to make fresh written representations with documentary proofs within four weeks, and the competent authorities were directed to respond with speaking orders in accordance with law within six weeks thereafter and communicate them — all writ petitions disposed of; no costs; pending miscellaneous applications closed. None represented for the petitioners at the hearing; respondents' side heard through Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi (Standing Counsel, AP Transco), Ms. Aiswarya Chowdary (for Sri V.V. Satish) and G.P. for Energy.
