Dismissed

Adapa Rama Rao v. The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region

Telangana HC14 Jul 2006WP/13523/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Between a group of APSRTC conductors and the Personnel Officer, this court allowed the writ petition challenging the administrative order transferring them from Kakinada Depot. The court held such transfers are administrative incidents not to be interfered with absent malafide.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. The petitioners are at liberty to seek retention via representation.

Adapa Rama Rao Vs The Personnel Officer, East… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2006)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶2

W.P. No. 13523 of 2006

¶3

Dated: 14.07.2006

¶4

Between

¶5

Adapa Rama Rao, S/o Sattiraju, Conductor, E-63258, Kakinada Depot, APSRTC, E.G. District and others.

¶6

….. Petitioners.

¶7

And

¶8

The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region, Rajahmundry, APSRTC, E.G. District and another.

¶9

….. Respondents.

¶10

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶11

W.P. No. 13523 of 2006

¶12

Oral order:

¶13

None appears for the petitioners. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.

¶14

The petitioners, who are employed in the respondentsAPSRTC, have filed this writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 06.04.2006, issued by the 1^st respondent-Personnel Officer, transferring them from Kakinada Depot to various other Depots on the ground of long standing at the verge of their retirement.

¶15

Transfer is an incidence of service, and is made keeping in view the administrative exigencies and needs of the organization. This Court normally does not interfere in matter of transfer, unless it is shown that the transfer has been effected mala fide or for extraneous reasons.

¶16

A reading of the impugned order of transfer would disclose that the employees, who have been working since long time in Kakinada Depot, have been transferred, and as the petitioners are said to be long standing employees at the present place, no exception can be taken to the action of the 1^st respondent in transferring them from Kakinada Depot to various Depots, and more so when transfer is an incidence of service.

¶17

Be that as it may, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned transfer orders, they are at liberty to make appropriate

¶18

representation seeking their retention at the present place, and if any such representation is made, it is open for the respondentsCorporation to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.

¶19

With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No

¶20

costs.

¶21

________________ N.V. RAMANA, J.

¶22

Date: 14.07.2006 Nsr/Grk

Adapa Rama Rao v. The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Adapa Rama Rao v. The Personnel Officer, East Godavari Region

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.G.K.Rao, Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc, Gadwal Bus Depot

V.R. Reddy Vs The Depot Manager, Apsrtc

E.N. Goud Vs The Regional Manager (Hcr)

J.K. Rao Conductor, E-93735, S/o Sri Ramulu Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc., Krishna Region

Md. Hafeez, Vs The Depot Manager

K.Subba Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, Apsrtc