Disposed

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam v. Andhra PRadesh Social Welfare Residential

Telangana HC13 Dec 2011WP/32570/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging transfer order in educational institution institution despite pending internal appeal. Court did not examine merits but directed authorities to consider pending appeal and pass orders within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the pending appeal filed on 25.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders within two weeks.

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam Vs Andhra PRadesh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.32570 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

Mr.M.Nagabhushnam … Petitioner And A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, Masab Tank, Hyderabad, Rep.by its Secretary and another.

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶10

W.P. No.32570 of 2011

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

Questioning the impugned order dated 18.11.2011, wherein the petitioner is transferred from APSWRS/JC, Chilkur, Ranga Reddy District to APSWRS/JC, Narayankhed, Medak District, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that aggrieved by the impugned order, he filed an appeal before the appellate authority and the same is pending without passing any orders on it.

¶13

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined in the service of the respondents’ institution in the year 1990 and he was promoted as Junior Lecturer in the year 1996. While working as such at Chilkur transfer counseling was held on 14.06.2011 in respect of the Junior Lecturers in Zone VI and

¶14

later on, the petitioner was transferred as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority on 25.11.2011 and the same is pending. Hence, the present writ petition.

¶15

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that transfer counseling was held on 14.06.2011 wherein the petitioner opted to Parigi, which falls under the Category-III.

¶16

The respondents’ authorities, without considering the option of the petitioner, transferred to APSWRS/JL, Narayankhed Medak District and the said transfer is contrary to the guidelines issued in

¶17

G.O.Rt.No.455, dated 04.06.2011. He also submitted that the petitioner was working in Chilkur, which falls under the Category-III as per the above transfer guidelines. As per the said guidelines, from Category-I & II to Category III & IV or vice-versa is only permissible. Since, Chilkur Institution is notified as

¶18

Category-III, he is entitled to opt the institution in Category-I & II as the case may be. In view of the above, the impugned order is bad and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside. It is also submitted that assailing the impugned order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Minister for Social Welfare and Chairman for A.P.Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions, who endorsed directing the Secretary of the Society to examine the matter and take necessary action, and the same is pending.

¶19

On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that it is specific submission on the part of the petitioner that the appeal filed by him is pending consideration, therefore, the respondents may be directed to consider the same, in accordance with law.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.

¶21

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, without going into the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal stated to have been filed by the petitioner on 25.11.2011 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from today.

¶22

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is

¶23

disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶25

Date: 13.12.2011

¶26

Note: Furnish C.C. in two days. B/o. LSK

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam v. Andhra PRadesh Social Welfare Residential

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. M. Nagabhushanam v. Andhra PRadesh Social Welfare Residential

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

Ch. Sai Babu, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

B. Mohan Murali Vs Sri Venkateswara Institute of Medical Sciences

Palagada. Narasa Rao Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary

No.065026813 G.D Constable Recruit Vs Sri C.S.Rao, Deputy Inspector General of Police

G.Seetaramaiah Vs The Apgenco

Pratosh Kumar Tiwari Vs Sri C.S. Rao