Telangana High Court
WP/13504/2006 of S.E. Prasad Rao, Vs Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, on 26 December 2006
SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION No. 13504 of 2006 DATED: 26-12-2006 Between: S.E.Prasad Rao …Petitioner and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad and others. …Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA W.P.No. 13504 of 2006 Oral order: The
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
WRIT PETITION No. 13504 of 2006
DATED: 26-12-2006
Between:
S.E.Prasad Rao
…Petitioner
and
Andhra Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation, Hyderabad and others.…Respondents.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA
W.P.No. 13504 of 2006
Oral order:
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that he was transferred fromPalasa Depot to Srikakulam Depot and again he was re-transferred toPalasa by an order dated 19-6-2006.
Initially this court granted an interim order dated 17-7-2006 which was not implemented. Hence a contempt case inC.C.No.1200 of 2006 was filed.
A detailed counter-affidavit is filed by the respondents, which reads as under:
“It is submitted that the transfer of the petitioner dated10-4-2006 was cancelled on seniority basis as per thecircular. It is submitted that the petitioner’s request fortransfer to Srikakulam II depot was considered erroneouslyunder the impression that he is the senior most employeeseeking such transfer. Since on verification it is found thathe is not the senior most employee, the transfer orderissued has been cancelled and the petitioner has beenredirected to Palasa depot. It is humbly submitted that thesenior most employee who had been actually workingoutside Srikakulam II depot since 10 years i.e., from 16-2-1996 and who deserves to get transferred to Srikakulam IIdepot cannot be deprived of such transfer to accommodatethe petitioner who had been working since 8 years outsideSrikakulam II depot i.e., from 18-8-1998.
It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court was pleased topass interim suspension of the proceedings dated 19-6-2006 until further orders in W.P.M.P.No.16780/2006 inW.P.No.13504/2006 on 17-7-2006. It is submitted thatsince Srikakulam II depot is in district Head quarters, everyemployee working in the region would be eagerly waitingfor his turn to get transferred to the depots located in districthead quarters. The employees who are requesting fortransfer to a particular station can be accommodated only by transferring long standing employees. Sri J.Staya Raoof Palakonda depot who has been working outside districtHead quarters since 10 years cannot be sent back toaccommodate the petitioner. It is humbly submitted thatthere are no other Blacksmiths working in District Headquarters who can be transferred on the long standing basisto accommodate the petitioner. Therefore if the petitionerdoes not report at Palasa depot, there will be no Blacksmithworking at Palasa depot.”
Now when the matter came up for hearing today, the learnedstanding counsel has produced service record to show that Sri J.SatyaRao is senior to the petitioner and by taking into consideration theseniority of Sri J.Satya Rao, the respondents have passed the presentorder.
At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought thepermission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to make arepresentation for re-consideration of his transfer to Srikakulam depot.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with libertyas prayed for. Consequently, the interim order earlier granted by thiscourt on 17-7-2006 shall automatically stand vacated.
26[th] December, 2006GRR
_____________
N.V. RAMANA, J