The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by APSRTC conductors against their transfer, holding transfer is an administrative incidence and directed parties to seek redress via appropriate representations before the respondents.
The writ petition is dismissed. Petitioners are at liberty to make representations to the respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 14259 of 2006
DATED: 13-07-2006
Between:
E.N.Goud PETITIONER
AND
The Regional Manager (HCR) APSRTC, JBS/Picket, Secunderabad & another RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO.14259 OF 2006
ORAL ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-APSRTC.
The petitioners, who are working as Conductors with the respondents-APSRTC, filed this writ petition assailing the proceedings dated 01.07.2006 passed by the 2nd respondent, namely Deputy Chief Personnel Manager (HCR), repatriating them to Ranga Reddy Region. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that petitioners had given their option to Ranga Reddy division in the year 1994 and 1996 and the same was not considered and they were compelled to stay in Hyderabad City Region. Accordingly, they are working as conductors in Hyderabad City Region for the last more than 14 years and settled their families at Hyderabad. Thus, it is contended that after lapse of fourteen years, without obtaining fresh options, transferring the petitioners to Ranga Reddy division is illegal.
Transfer is an incidence of service, and is made keeping in view the administrative exigencies and needs of the organization. It is not a punishment. This Court normally does not interfere in matter of transfer, unless it is shown that the transfer has been made on mala fide grounds or for extraneous reasons.
Be that as it may, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the
impugned transfer orders, they are at liberty to make appropriate representations seeking their retention at the present place, and if any such representation is made, it is open for the respondents to consider and dispose of the same in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs.
______________ N.V.RAMANA,J
DATE: 13-07-2006
TVK
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
WRIT PETITION NO : 14259 of 2006
DATED: 13-07-2006
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the transfer of conductors of APSRTC to a different region constitutes illegal encroachment on their option.
Whether the High Court should interfere in administrative decisions regarding employee transfer.
E.N.Goud
The Regional Manager (HCR) APSRTC
N.V. Ramana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
