Disposed

K. Percy Susan v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC8 Dec 2023WP/33340/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed by a school assistant seeking direction to the State of Telangana to consent to a permanent inter-state transfer after receiving consent from the transferring state. The court disposed of the petition directing the Telangana authorities to take a decision post-factual verification.

What did the court decide?

No order as to costs. All pending miscellaneous applications closed.

K. Percy Susan Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^337e ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 33340 OF 2o23

¶8

Between:

¶9

li,^{PepV.Susan, Wo S. JeevanBabu,Age 44 years, School Assistant (Maths), Govt.} High School, Nagalapuram, Chittoor Diatribt, Presenfly working at Red Cro6s High School, Chandrayangutta, Bandlaguda, Hyderabad, T.S.

¶10

.....PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

'l . State of Telangana, represented by its Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶13

State of Telangana, represented by its Principal Secretary to Government School Education Department, Secretariat Building, Hyderabad.

¶14

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Chief Secretary to Government AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur District, A.P.

¶15

State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Princrpal Secretary to Government School Education Department, AP Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati Guntur Diskict, A.P.

¶16

.....RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewrth. the High Court may be pleased to grant appiopriate relief, more in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, declaring the action of the State of Telangana/1"t Respondent in not according consent for permanent inter-state transfers in so far as the Petitioner is cbncerned, in pursuance of D.O. Letter No GAD0l- APSROBIF(lN5f!26t2021-ML0-2 dated 23-09-2022 addressed by the 3'd Respondent to the 1st Respondent, as arbrtrary illegal, discriminatory, maiafide and unconstitutional violating Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and issue consequential directions directing the State of Telangana/1'r

¶18

Respondent to forthwith accord consent for permanent inter-state transfers of the Petitioner f rom t re State of Andhra Pradesh to the State of Terlangana in pursuance of D O. Letter No GAD0l- APSROBIRIN5T)/2612021-Mt_0-2, dated 23-09-2022 addressed by the 3rd Respondent, and further direct the 3rd and 4th Respondents to relieve the Petitioner from the State of Andhra Pradesh immediately after receiving consent from the State of Telangana/1't flespondent in pursuance of D,.O Letter No GADO1-APSROBIF(INST)12612021-ML0-2 dated 23-09-2022 addressed by the 3'd Respondent to the 1st Respondent, and also direct the 1't and 2nd Respondents to allow the Petitioner to loin in the State of Telangana at her respectrve unit rmmediately after relieving the Petitioner from the State of Andhr;a Pradesh. and also further direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to continue the petitioner in the State of Telangana till effecting permanent transfer of the petiltoner from State of Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State. |.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶19

Petition Under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filecl in support of the petrtron, the High Court may be pleased to direct the 1't and 2nc Respondents to forthwith accord consent for permanent inter-state transfer of the Petitioners from Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State in pursuance of D.O. Letter No cAD01-APSROB|NtNST)/26l2021- MLO-2, dated 23-09-2022, and also drrect the Respondents No.3 and 4 to rt_.lieve the Petitioners from ttre state of Andhra Pradesh after obtaining consent from Respondents No.1 and 2 in pursuance of D.O. Letter No.GADO1APSROBlNlNSfY26l202l-I\ALO-2. dated 23-09-2022 addressed to the 1st Respondent, and further drrect the^'l'r and 2nd Respondents to allow the Petitioner to join in the state of relangana after relieving the petitioner from the State of Andhra Pradesh and also further drrect the^'lSt and 2nd respc,ndents to continue the petrtroner in the state of retangana till effecting permanent transfer of the petitroner from State of Andhra Pradesh to Telangana State pending disposal of the writ petition

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI P.V.KRISHNAIAH

¶21

Counsel for the Resp,)ndent No.1:GP FOR SERVTCES - l/SRl p.cOVlND REDDY counsel for the Resprcndent No.2 : Gp FoR SERVICES - u sRl p.GovlND REDDY Counsel for the Respr:ndent Nos.3 & 4:GP FOR SERVICES/ SRI P.GOVIND REDDY The Court made the following ORDER

¶22

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM^KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶23

WRIT PETITION No.3334O OF 2o23

¶24

ORI)ER : 1rpe. aon'l-rle Sn^{.-ft rsl} rce^P. s,q,w^{K o SH Y} )

¶25

The limited relief that the petitioner has sought for in^the present 'vvrit petition is for an appropriate direction^to respondent Nos. I and 2.

¶26

The grievance of the petitioner is that she had applied^for transfer from the State of Andhra^{Pradesh tothe State of} Telangana as a result of the^{bifurcationof the two states arising} out of the Andhra Pradesh Re-organization^Act,2O14.

¶27

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that^the petitioner had alreadv made a request for her transfer^{from the} State of Andhra Pradesh to^{the State of Teiangana.In terms of} the polic-v decision of the t$'o^{states,there was amutual} agreement bet['een the states that in^{the event of consentgiven} by the tw'o respective states, the^{concerned employee can be} transferred accordin^gly.

¶28

In the instant case, the^{petitioneru'ho is presentlyworking} in the State of Andhra Pradesh^{hacl movedan application before}

¶29

¶30

PSK,J & NTR,J WP.No.3334(r oJ 2023

¶31

the present emplover i.e., the State of Andhra pradesh and it has gi'en consent in terms of the agreement between the two states. Thereafter, the petitioner had approached resl>ondent Nos. 1 arrd 2 for considering her claim for being transfe.rred to the State of Telangana ald for grant of necessary consent along .i.ith thc r€(lr.rest letter issued by the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra pradesh dated 23.O9.2022 to the Chief Secretary of the State ol'l'clangana in this regard. However, a decision is -vet to be taken Lrr. respondent Nos.l and 2. presentiy, this irrit perition ha; lteen filed only for an appropriate direction for arr appropriate rler:ision by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on th,: saicl request lerrr.r moved by the Chief Secretary of the State of Andhra l,rar]csh clated 23.O9.2022.

¶32

Consirlering the relief sought for by the petitioner, being most innocuoLls. r.e are of the considered opinion thzrt no fruitful purf)ose u.ould be served in keeping the u,rit petition pending or .crmil ting it or caning for the counter, etc. , r,ather than ends o[ lustice u.ould be met if the writ petrtion at this juncture uor lrl trc clisposed of directing respondent Nos. I and 2 to take an appropriate decision on the claim of the petitioner for accepting the r:ansfbr irom the State of Andhra pradesh tc the

¶33

PS.K,J & il:TR,J llP.No.3334O oJ 2O23

¶34

¶35

State of Telangana for which the State of Andhra Pradesh has already given its consent.

¶36

Let respondent Nos. I and 2 take an appropriate decision, after due verihcation of the facts at the earliest, preferably rvithin a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. So far as the posting or deputation of the petitioner in the State of Telangana is concerned, the petitioner would be at liberty'to approach the concerned authorities for extension of time. This Court at this juncture would not like to enter into the merits in thal regard.

¶37

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed

¶38

SD/.A.V.S.^PRASAD ASSISTANT^RE€ISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶39

SECTION^OFFICER

¶40

To 1. The Chief Secretary^{to Government, secretariat Building, State of Telangana} at Hvderabad

¶41

ii.,'" 6r..[rr secretary to Government,^{SchoolEducation Department'} s;;r.i;;;[ Brilding,^{siate of relansana at Hvderabad}

¶42

fi;';;;r b;;;ii[i^{to cou"tnrn"ni n'p S"tietariat' Velasapudi' Amaravatt} Cuntur Distrrct.^{Staie of Telanqana at Hyderabad'}

¶43

i;;E;,;i;;iiecietarv^{to doJ"inment,'school-EducationDepartm-ent'AP} $;,;i;;;I v;i6rpr,ii,^{Amaravati,Stateor A P Guntur District AP}

¶44

i;;b*Cr il b-p-Fois".i".s,^{High'Courtfor the State of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶45

6 r,lr""ctti" 6p rb,^{Services- t, High courtfor the state of Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT]

¶46

7 ijr;"ce;i.6irtr^{services_ 1t, High courtfor the stateof Telanganaat} Hvderabad [OUT] oi,"-cCi. Sri^{P V Krishnaiah, Advocate} tOB991 .^.

¶47

8I o;; aa io^{Sri P Govind Reddy,Advocate(oPUC)} 10 Two CD CoPies

SA g GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:0811212023

ORDER

WP.No.33340 o12023

1 P.e s-'A? 6
rt f'>
o() 11 0E[ 2023
-!Io
d'
,,
i OE sP/lcPf

¶54

DISPOSING OIT THE W.P

¶55

wt'tHouT cosl's.

¶56

(qq't

K. Percy Susan v. State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Percy Susan v. State of Telangana

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

Lakshmi Sudhakar Nekanti Vs B. Raju and Another

P. Laxmi and 3 Others Vs B. Swamy and Another

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Aedella Aparna

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Vs Jayashree Gurve and 4 Others

Mr. Srinivas Reddy Mudiganti Vs The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

Smt. Birkad Nirmala Vs The Adarsh Co- operative Urab Bank Ltd.