Partly allowed

S. Uday Kumar v. The Government of A.P

Telangana HC20 Feb 2014WP/1740/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partially allowed two writ petitions challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order quashing a Government Order (G.O.Rt.No.126) imposing a transfer ban. The Court agreed with the Tribunal that the order violated a specific ban but reversed the direction to transfer the second petitioner outside Nizamabad, limiting the relief to posting the first petitioner out of the

What did the court decide?

W.P.No.1174 of 2014 allowed; W.P.No.1740 of 2014 dismissed. Commissioner of Civil Supplies directed to post Respondent No.5 within two weeks.

S. Uday Kumar Vs The Government of A.P — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION Nos.1174 & 1740 OF 2014

¶4

COMMON ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

These writ petitions are filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 3.1.2014, in O.A.No.8171 of 2013 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and set aside the same.

¶6

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The applicant/petitioner in W.P.No.1740 of 2014 belongs to Civil Supplies Department and joined as a Junior Assistant on 10.8.1988. From 1995 till the date of the transfer through G.O.Rt.No.126 Consumer Affairs, Food & Civil Supplies (CS-1) Department, dated 18.11.2013, issued by respondent No.1, the applicant has been working in different posts at different places within the district of Nizamabad for almost 17 years. He is a native of Nizamabad District. His contention is that the aforementioned Government Order was issued in relaxation of the ban and without the concurrence of the Finance Department, which is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.119, Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 17.5.2013, wherein ban was imposed with effect from 16.5.2013 except in respect of the cases mentioned therein. His grievance is that he was shifted to accommodate the unofficial respondent No.5/petitioner in W.P.No.1174 of 2014, which is not as per rules. He, being at serial No.3, is ripe for promotion and left with only five years of service to retire. Hence, he filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal.

¶8

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, disposed of the Original Application by setting aside the G.O.Rt.No.126, dated 18.11.2013, issued by respondent No.1 and directed the official respondents to post both the applicant as well as respondent No.5 outside Nizamabad District within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Challenging the same, respondent No.5 filed W.P.No1174 of 2014 and applicant filed W.P.No.1740 of 2014.

¶9

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 contended that on spouse case, respondent No.5 was transferred to Nizamabad; that the finding that G.O.Rt.No.126, dated 18.11.2013, was issued against the advise of Finance Department is not correct; that the said Government Order was issued considering the request of respondent No.5 when there is no ban order and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶10

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the applicant contended that in spite of opposition from the Finance Department, the said Government Order was passed and therefore, it was rightly set aside by the Tribunal; that the Tribunal ought not to have directed the official respondents to post the applicant out of Nizamabad District and hence, he prays to set aside that finding.

¶11

7. As per G.O.Ms.No.119, Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 17.5.2013, orders were issued relaxing the ban on transfers for the period from 25.4.2013 to 15.5.2013 subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. The Government, after careful consideration, ordered a ban on all transfers with effect from 16.5.2013 except in respect of the following cases:

¶12

“i) Posting orders to the employees on account of promotion shall be issued to the clear existing vacancies without shifting any other employees.

¶13

ii) Posting orders to the employees due to disbandment of posts, reversions, repatriations, deputations (on Foreign Service only),

¶14

disciplinary proceedings shall be issued in clear existing vacancies without shifting other employees.

¶15

iii) The vacancy arising out of leave up to a period of six (6) months [The maximum period of Earned Leave that can be availed by Government Employee at a time vide G.O.Ms.No.153, Fin (FR.I) Dept. dt.04.05.2010] shall not be filled in by Transfer, Posting orders to the employees on return from long leave of six months and above shall be issued in clear existing vacancies without shifting other employees.”

¶16

It is also stated that no relaxation proposals shall be entertained by any department for a period for six months commencing from 16.5.2013. It is not in dispute before this Court that the applicant was working in the same department in Nizamabad for almost 17 years whereas respondent No.5 was working in Nizamabad from 2011 onwards whereas her husband has been working in Nizamabad District since 2009 onwards. As per G.O.Ms.No.100, Fin (DCM-III) Dept, dated 22.4.2013, husband and wife cases shall be considered. Only one of the spouses shall be shifted following the prescribed procedure. It is not in dispute before this Court that after expiry of maternity leave, respondent No.5 was posted at Sangareddy of Medak District, but deputed to work in Nizamabad. She made an application for request transfer on 20.6.2013 to post her at the District Supply Office, Nizamabad under a spouse case by relaxing the relevant rules. By that time, the ban was there. Therefore, the file was sent to the Finance Department for concurrence. As seen from the record produced by the learned Government Pleader for Services – I, it is clear that the Finance Department has not opposed the request, as the proposal does not come under G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 17.5.2013. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 17.5.2013. Hence, it was rightly set aside by the Tribunal. But, the observation of the Tribunal with regard to transferring respondent No.5 outside Nizamabad District is set aside, as admittedly, she joined in the office of the District Supply Office, Nizamabad on 1.4.2011. So, there shall be a direction to the Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad to give posting orders to respondent No.5

¶17

within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶18

8. Accordingly, W.P.No.1174 of 2014 is allowed and W.P.No.1740 of 2014 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed.

¶19

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶20

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

Date: 20.02.2014 AMD

¶22

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶23

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶24

WRIT PETITION Nos.1174 & 1740 OF 2014