Dismissed

The State, of Telangana, v. Y. Surya Prakasa Rao

Telangana HC1 Jul 2014WP/17807/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Government challenged the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside a transfer of a government employee. The Court found the Tribunal correct in setting aside the order as it violated rules prohibiting shifting of employees during promotion, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition filed by the Government was dismissed; miscellaneous petitions were closed; no order as to costs.

The State, of Telangana, Vs Y. Surya Prakasa Rao — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.17807 OF 2014

¶3

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

¶4

This writ petition is filed challenging the order, dated 28.4.2014, in O.A.No.225 of 2014 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶5

2. Respondent No.1/applicant filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal to declare the action of petitioner No.1 herein in transferring him from R & B Sub-Division, Madhira, Khammam District to NH Division, Eturunagaram, Warangal District, which is 260 kms. away, as Personal Assistant to Executive Engineer vide G.O.Rt.No.31, Transport, Roads & Buildings (Ser.II) Department, dated 9.1.2014, as illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the rules and guidelines framed by the Finance Department from time to time for effecting transfers and postings of employees vide G.O.Ms.No.119 Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 17.5.2013, G.O.Ms.No.100 Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 22.4.2013; G.O.Ms.No.127, dated 22.6.2011, apart from letter No.11574/Ser.III(3)/2013-2, dated 7.1.2014, of petitioner No.2 and consequently, prays to set aside G.O.Rt.No.31, dated 9.1.2014, and direct the petitioners herein to allow him to continue in the present place i.e., R & B Sub Division, Madhira, Khammam District till the end of academic year or the date of ensuing counselling for transfers.

¶6

3. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application by setting aside G.O.Rt.No.31, dated 9.1.2014.

¶7

Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the Government.

¶8

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioners contended that as respondent No.1/applicant has completed 2 ½ years service in R & B Sub Division at Madhira, he was shifted from that place; that after obtaining concurrence from the Finance Department, G.O.Rt.No.31, dated 9.1.2014, which was challenged before the Tribunal, was issued and hence, he prays to admit the writ petition.

¶9

5. There cannot be any dispute that transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and the employer has got every right to transfer the employee from one place to another place, but it should be in accordance with the rules or on administrative instructions governing the transfer of the employee.

¶10

Clause 2(i) of G.O.Ms.No.119, Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 17.5.2013, reads as follows:

¶11

“2. Government after careful consideration hereby order a ban on all transfers w.e.f.16.05.2013 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

The contention of respondent No.1/applicant in the Original Application was that his transfer was effected by shifting him to post V. Venkateswar Rao in his place after giving promotion. In view of Clause 2(i) of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 17.5.2013, as promotion was given to V. Venkateswar Rao, he should have been accommodated in a clear existing vacancy instead of shifting respondent No.1. Though the transfer order was passed after obtaining concurrence from the Finance Department, at the same time, the said order is in violation to

¶14

Clause 2(i) of G.O.Ms.No.119, dated 17.5.2013. Precisely for that reason, the Tribunal rightly set aside the transfer order and the same needs no interference by this Court, as no perverse finding is given and none of the findings is shown to be to be contrary to law or material on record. Hence, the Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

6. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS

¶18

Date: 01.07.2014 AMD

¶19

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

¶20

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶21

WRIT PETITION No.17807 OF 2014

¶22

DATE: 01.7.2014

¶23

AMD

The State, of Telangana, v. Y. Surya Prakasa Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State, of Telangana, v. Y. Surya Prakasa Rao

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

The Deputy Inspector General of Registration Vs Md. Riyazuddin, S/o M.C. Basha, Senior Assistant

Tirupathi Yadav Vs Government of A.P.

Perumalla Sujatha, Vs Perumalla Sadashivudu

The Commissioner, Techinical Education Depratment, Vs T.Prasanna Kumar

B.Vidya Luck Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its

The Director, Directorate of Economics and Statistics Vs v. Mahipal, Chief Planning Officer