Disposed

Samuel Morris v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Telangana HC16 Dec 2011WP/32125/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court did not interfere with the transfer order but directed the petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority regarding frequent transfers and family health issues, with the respondent corporation to consider it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was directed to make a representation to the appropriate authority regarding frequent transfers and family circumstances, which the respondent corporation must consider expeditiously.

Samuel Morris Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

¶2

WRIT PETITION No. 32125 of 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for issuance of writ of mandamus, declaring the Proceedings in Rc.No.23/2008/E dated 28.11.2011, issued by the 4^th respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, unwarranted, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also contrary to the Government Orders, and consequently set aside the same.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents-Corporation.

¶6

The facts which are not in dispute are:

¶7

The petitioner joined the respondent-corporation on 01.01.1987 as Non-Technical Work Inspector in Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam District. Later, on 14.08.2008, he was transferred to Chodavaram, and again on 18.06.2009, he was transferred to Gajuwaka. Again on 25.06.2009, he was transferred to Aruku Valley as I/c AE/MIC. Later, on 01.02.2010, he was posted as Mandal Incharge at Peddabayalu, and again on 25.06.2010, he was posted to his original post, Non-Technical Work Inspector, Paderu. Again, on 07.01.2011, he was posted to Peddabayalu. Again, on 13.01.2011, he was posted as Mandal Incharge, Devarapally. Now, on 28.11.2011, he was transferred to Paderu as Non-Technical Work Inspector vide the impugned proceedings. Being aggrieved by frequent transfers, within a short span of time, the petitioner filed this writ petition challenging the impugned proceedings.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is subjected to frequent transfers within a short span of time, and that his

¶9

wife is working as Field Assistant in Senior Civil Judge Court in Chodavaram, and that she is not keeping good health, and that he has two daughters to look after. The counsel further submits that due to frequent transfers, the petitioner is unable to attend to his wife’s medical requirements and that even as per the Government’s policy when both husband and wife are working in the Government, their case can be considered for posting at the same station.

¶10

Generally, this Court does not interfere with the transfer orders. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is at liberty to make a representation to the appropriate authority/Superintending Engineer in the respondent-corporation, forthwith, explaining the facts of the case and raising the grounds mentioned in this writ petition. The respondent-corporation is directed to consider the same, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶11

With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

___________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 16^th December, 2011 Note: CC in two days KSM

Samuel Morris v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samuel Morris v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

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

G.Gopal Rajaiah Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Smt. Yenduru Pydamma, Hindu, Female Vs M/s. Hindustan Shipyard Limited

Mudam Ramesh Vs The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd.

D.v.v.Prasad, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

Kotla Madhusudhan Vs The Chief General Manager

P.Kanaka Rao, Vs The Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C.