Disposed

B.Ashok Kumar v. Watch Marketing Division, No.59, Bellary Road

Telangana HC23 Dec 2011WP/33749/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a transfer from Hyderabad to Coimbatore on the ground of the petitioner's daughter's education, the court disposed of the petition by granting liberty to file a representation for retention and directing the employer to consider it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to make representation for retention at Hyderabad; respondents directed to consider it within two weeks.

B.Ashok Kumar Vs Watch Marketing Division… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶5

W.P. No.33749 of 2011

¶6

Between:

¶7

B.Ashok Kumar … Petitioner and

¶8

HMT Watches Limited and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶11

W.P. No.33749 of 2011

¶12

ORDER:

¶13

Questioning office order dated 22.11.2011, where under the petitioner was transferred from Hyderabad to Coimbatore, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on 17.03.1979 in HMT (Lamps) Limited, Jeedimetla, Hyderabad as Stenographer in marketing division and transferred to HMT Watches Limited, watch marketing division Basheerbagh, Hyderabad on 16.03.1997. During the said transfer, he was posted as Junior Sales Officer and thereafter promoted as Sale Officer in 2001. While working as Sales Officer, he was transferred to Accounts Department and made in-charge of A.P. Region and in the year 2004 he was re-designated as Accounts Officer in the respondents Company. Since then, he has been discharging his duties as such. While so, when he was on leave for taking treatment for Cervical Spondilysis, the 3^rd respondent,

¶15

Joint General Manager, issued impugned transfer order dated 22.11.2011 from Hyderabad to Coimbatore. Hence, challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on the ground that his daughter is studying B.Tech., II year and if he is transferred from Hyderabad to Coimbatore, his daughter’s studies will be affected.

¶16

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

¶17

It is a transfer order from Hyderabad to Coimbatore and the ground raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner’s daughter is pursuing education in B.Tech., II year and in the event of accepting the transfer order, her education will be affected.

¶18

In that view of the matter, I am of the view that without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction.

¶19

This writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent respondents authorities seeking for his retention at Hyderabad, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of making such representation by the petitioner,

¶20

the respondents competent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner.

¶21

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

¶22

_________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

¶23

Date: 23.12.2011 LSK

B.Ashok Kumar v. Watch Marketing Division, No.59, Bellary Road

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Ashok Kumar v. Watch Marketing Division, No.59, Bellary Road

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

Pola Srinivasa Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

P.Chandra Shekar, Vs The Divisional Manager

K.Murali Krishna Vs The Chairman, Statel Level Police Recruitment Board

K. Maheswar Reddy, Vs The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation

P. Peeraiah, Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director

A.S. Chary Vs The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Apsrtc