Dismissed

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, v. The Registrar

Telangana HC21 Jan 2014WP/31161/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal's order setting aside a government employee's transfer. Upholding the Tribunal, the Court found the transfer violated transfer guidelines limiting cadre transfers to 20%.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; Tribunal order upholding setting aside of transfer order is affirmed.

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, Vs The Registrar — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.31161 OF 2013

¶3

ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This Writ Petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 05.09.2013, passed in O.A.No.3755 of 2013, by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

¶5

The 2^nd respondent herein was working as Senior Assistant in E.S.I. Dispensary, Sankarapuram, Kadapa. By order, dated 15.05.2013, passed in Rc.No.5392/E2A/2013, he was transferred to E.S.I. Dispensary, Adoni, and the petitioner was transferred to Kadapa, where the 2^nd respondent was working. Challenging the same, the 2^nd respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal, having noticed that the said order is contrary to the guidelines issued by the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.100, Finance (DCM-III) Department, dated 22.04.2013, has set aside the same.

¶6

Counter affidavits are filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3

¶7

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the 2^nd respondent had worked for more

¶8

than two years in E.S.I. Dispensary at Kadapa and he has also exercised options for transfer to E.S.I. Hospital, Tirupati; E.S.I. Dispensary, Tirupati; and E.S.I. Dispensary, Renigunta, and subsequently, when counselling was held for transfers, he did not turn up. It is further submitted that as the 2^nd respondent was not accommodated in any of the places opted by him, he has questioned the same and without recording any valid reasons, the Tribunal has set aside the order of transfer. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent that as per Clause (Vii) of the transfer guidelines notified in G.O.Ms.No.100, not more than 20% of the employees in any cadre shall be transferred and no person shall be transferred unless there are accompanying circumstances. It is further submitted that no person shall be retained beyond five years of service in a particular station and there are candidates who have put in more number of years of service at Kadapa than the 2^nd respondent and hence, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the transfer order.

¶9

The Government has issued exhaustive guidelines/instructions in G.O.Ms.No.100, dated 22.04.2013. From a perusal of the same, it is clear that not more than 20% of the employees in any cadre shall be

¶10

transferred at a given point of time. In the counter affidavits filed before this Court, it is categorically stated that in Zone – IV, cadre strength of Senior Assistants is only 15 and six candidates have already been transferred, whose names are stated in the counter affidavits. Further, it is also stated that as per the guidelines issued in the aforesaid G.O., the employees who have put in longer service at a particular station shall be transferred without exceeding the overall ceiling of 20%. As evident from the counter affidavits, the 2^nd respondent has just completed two years of service and further, there are candidates who have put in more number of years of service at Kadapa than the 2^nd respondent. Having issued guidelines for transfers, there is no reason to effect transfers contrary to such guidelines. It is true that 20% ceiling limit cannot debar the appointing authority from transferring an employee in accompanying circumstances, but no such circumstance is brought to the notice of this Court. Therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order of transfer.

¶11

In view of the reasons recorded by the Tribunal and having regard to the averments made in the counter affidavits, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

¶12

The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

¶13

Petition, shall stand closed. No costs.

¶14

_____________________________

¶15

JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶16

__________________________________ JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶17

21^st January, 2014 MD

¶18

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. SHANKAR NARAYANA

¶19

WRIT PETITION No.31161 OF 2013

¶20

(Per Hon'ble Sri Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶21

21^st January, 2014

¶22

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, v. The Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, v. The Registrar

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. Sayanna, S/o Pedda Saheb, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its

M.Srinivasa Rao son of Rami Naidu, Vs Bandaru Varaha Naga Bhushana Rao S/o late Venkata Rao

The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Vs G.Amrutha Rao, S/o.Rama Swamy

I.Veerabrahmam Vs The District Tribal Welfare Officer

V. Pullaiah Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

District Tribal Welfare Officer, Vs R. Joge Naik