Writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order regarding the petitioner's transfer. Court found the grievance resolved by administrative action retaining the petitioner at Hyderabad, leading to dismissal.
Writ Petition dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[3318 ]
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANAAT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO
wRtT PETtflON NO.32065 0F 2023
Between:
Sri.Birendra Sinku, S/o Late B.R.Sinku, aged 58 Yrs., Occ.GrA (NF-HAG) Working as, Chief workshop Manager, Carriage workshop, Lallaguda, S.C.Rly,R/o Rly Q.No.1006, Pingali venkayya Road, S.C.RailwayOfficerscolony, Post South Lallaguda, Hyderabad District, Telangana 500017
...PETITIONER
AND
UOI Rep- by its
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate order or direction moreparticularlyone in the Nature of Writ of Certiorari callingfor the Records pertainingto orders dated 10.11.2023 passed by the CentralAdminlstrativeTribunal Hyderabad Benchin
0.A No.64412023and sth Respondent Note Lt.No.MlConlPCMEl2O23dated 27.1O.2023and quash the same as arbitrary, illegaland in violation of comprehensivetransferpolicy of Railway BoardNo.E(O)/lll-201/PL/05 dated 31 .18.2O15and Addendumto the said policyCircular No.E(O)lll-2014iP1l05 dated 12.12.2O'lB,as they are unconstitutionaland selective discrimination besides mala fide,in the interestof Justice.
lA NO: 1 oF2023
Petitionunder Section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the affidavitfiled in support of the petition, the HighCourt may be pleased to direct theRespondentsto maintain Status-Quo till the Petitioners son completes his Xtlthclass final exams(CBSE) to be held in April/May 2024 Pending disposal of the WritPetition.
Counselfor the Petitioner:SRI G. PAVANA MURTHY
CounselfortheRespondents: SMT.L. PRANATIREDDY REPRESENTING SRI GADI PRAVEENKUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF ]NDIA
The Courtmade the following: ORDER
,'t a a
' aK xt& &t It
HON'BLESHRIJUSTICEABHINANDKUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SHRIJUSTICENAMAVARAPU RAJESIIWARRAO
$7.P.No.32065 of 2023
ORDER:(?erI Io n'bb.fi JunneAbhinandKtntor Shaili)
Aggrieved by theorder dated1'0.11,.2023passedin O.ANo.644 of2023 by the Crntral AdministntiveTribunal (for shon theTribunal), H;derabad, the present writ petition has beenfiled.
2
w
tVhen his request was not considered, challenging the said transfer order dated 20.10.2023, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.ANo.644 of 2Q23. The Tribunal uide order dated
10.11.2023 disposed of the said OA byobserving as under:
"lWhcn the matter is taken up for today for hearing, leamed counsel for the applicant reitented that the applicant's son is studying )flI standard and as such the applicant would tre satisfied if he is retained in the same post till the completion of his son's XII snndard. l-eamed counsel for the respondents submiued a copy o[ the Note dated 27 .10 .2023 , #rch reads as under:
'... [n the given circumstarces, it is now proposed to adust Shri Birendra Sinku in present city of posting i.e., Hyderabad in some other post under South Gntral Railway till the finalization of original O.ANo.644 of zoZl (Ie langana)."
From the above Note dated 27.10.2023, tt is observed that the respondens are ready to adjust the applicant in Hferabad itself. Therefore, there can be no grievance for the applicant and nothing further remains for adjudication in the presenr O.A
W'rth the above observations, the OA is disposed of."
Being not sadsfied wfth the said order, the petitioner has approached this Coun byfiling the present writ petition.
3
I I
t I
contended that in the OA" no protectionwas given tothe petitioner to continue him at H)derabad. Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in the writ petition by seningaside the order passed by the Tribunal and allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to continue the petitioner at Hyderabad as the peritioner is like ly to attain the age of superannuation in the next two )rears.
4
a
with and the grievance of the petitioner has been resolved by
retaining him at Hlderabad de proceedings dared 20.1L.2023.
Therefore, this C-out is not inclined to interfere urith the order
passed by the TribLrral.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
SD/. K. AMMAJI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPYII
To,
SECTION ICER tl,
MP
GJPts
HIGH COURT
DATED:2111112023
5TATE
o
u
s
sEs
tt .ai
o *
i DEseN
ORDER
WP.No.32065 of 2023
DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS
1t>
${ 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's disposal of the petitioner's transfer case should be allowed.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding his transfer has been redressed by the retention orders issued by the respondents.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Birendra Sinku
Union of India
Abhinand Kumar Shavili
Namavaru Rajeshwar Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
