Allowed

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, v. Shaik Raharnad

Telangana HC22 Jan 2014WP/35132/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the High Court allowed a writ petition filed by the State against an interim stay order passed by the AP Administrative Tribunal. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order making the stay absolute as the employee had already joined duty at the new posting pending government consideration of a retention request based on spouse grounds.

What did the court decide?

The order of the Tribunal dated 09.07.2013 was set aside, and the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was directed to pass orders on the retention representation within four weeks.

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Vs… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

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

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.35132 of 2013

¶3

ORDER : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)

¶4

This writ petition is filed by the respondents in O.A.No.5218 of 2013, aggrieved by order dated 09.07.2013, passed by the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in the said O.A.

¶5

The 1^st respondent/applicant is a Constable working in Prohibition and Excise Department and was working in Ranga Reddy District. By applying the provisions of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, he was transferred to Prakasam District and relieved by order, dated 04.05.2013, issued by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Saroornagar, Ranga Reddy District in Proceedings Cr.No.A5/717/2012-1, and consequently, he reported to duty in Prakasam District on 21.05.2013. However, he has also made a representation for his retention in Ranga Reddy District on the ground that his wife is working as a Teacher in the Unit of Ranga Reddy District and it is not a transferable post outside the District. Pursuant to such representation, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad has addressed a letter dated 03.09.2013, vide Cr.No.1127/2010/CPE/H3 to the Principal Secretary to

¶6

Government, Revenue Department, A.P., Hyderabad, to consider the request of 1^st respondent on spouse ground and the same is pending consideration.

¶7

When the matter stood thus, the 1^st respondent has approached the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, questioning the orders transferring him to the Unit of Prakasam District. Initially, ad interim order was passed and when an application is filed in VMA.No.2045 of 2013, impugned order is passed making the ad interim order absolute.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader appearing for petitioners that no valid reasons are recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order, for making the earlier interim order absolute. It is submitted that as the 1^st respondent has already joined in the Unit of Prakasam District, he is not entitled to any interim order pending disposal of the O.A. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for 1^st respondent that as he was not having any leaves to his credit, in order to avoid disciplinary proceedings, the 1^st respondent has joined at Prakasam District. It is further submitted that if he is to be posted in Ranga Reddy District on spouse ground, petitioners are contemplating to direct him to obtain the last ranking in the category of Constable.

¶9

In this case, it is to be noticed that this writ petition is filed only against the interim order passed by the Tribunal

¶10

suspending the order transferring the 1^st respondent from the Unit of Ranga Reddy District to Prakasam District. It is also not in dispute that by the date of passing of orders by the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent has reported in the Unit of Prakasam District. It is further to be noticed that on the representation filed by 1^st respondent, the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Hyderabad has also addressed the Principal Secretary to Government, Revenue Department, to consider his case as per para 5 (2) (c) of the A.P. Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order, 1975, on the ground that his wife is working in Ranga Reddy District.

¶11

As much as the 1^st respondent has already joined in Prakasam District pursuant to the orders of transfer and as his representation for retention in Ranga Reddy District is pending consideration before the Government, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of Tribunal, dated 09.07.2013, passed in O.A.No.5218 of 2013, with a further direction to petitioner No.4 herein to pass appropriate orders on the representation of 1^st respondent, as communicated by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad, dated 03.09.2013, vide Cr.No.1127/2010/CPE/H3, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order, and communicate the same to the 1^st respondent.

¶12

The writ petition is allowed subject to the directions as indicated above. No costs. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶13

______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 22^nd January 2014

¶14

__________________________ A.SHANKAR NARAYANA, J N.B: Issue C.C. in three days. (b/o) ajr

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, v. Shaik Raharnad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, v. Shaik Raharnad

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

I.Veerabrahmam Vs The District Tribal Welfare Officer

V. Pullaiah Vs The Commissioner of Tribal Welfare

N.Giridhar S/o Dasthagiri, Vs The Registrar

The Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs N. Krishna, Arhc 1008

The Director General of Police, Vs P.Damodararao PC-335

Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs M.Uma Devi