Telangana High Court

WP/21974/2004 of Smt. Lakshminarasamma, Vs The Government of India, on 30 December 2004

Cites 0, Cited by 0

COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY And THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO : 21974 of 2004 Between: Smt. Lakshminarasamma,

Citations and Judicial Treatment

No citing decisions in the index yet

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…

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

THURSDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND FOUR

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G. BIKSHAPATHY

And

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA

WRIT PETITION NO : 21974 of 2004

Between:

Smt. Lakshminarasamma, W/o. Late Venkatramulu, Sweeper, O/o. the Welfare Administrator, Labour Welfare Organisation, Kalichedu, Nellore District.

AND

..... PETITIONER

1 The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, Rep by its Director General (Labour Welfare), New Delhi - 11.

2 The Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased toissue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorarideclaring the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing the Order No. 2/24/A1/2004, dt.1-07-2004 transferring and posting the petitioner to Beedi Workers Welfare fundDispensary, Mukkudal as confirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide itsorder in O.A.NO. 760/2004, dt. 1-10-2004 as arbitrary, illegal and violative ofprinciples of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and direct therespondents to transfer and post the petitioner to a nearest place preferably atSiddipet, Medak District where there is a post of Sweeper existing and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SHARAT KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondents: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (SC FOR CG)

The Court made the following:

ORAL ORDER: (per GB.J.)

The Writ Petition is filed assailing the order passed by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (for short Tribunal) in O.A.No.760 of 2004, dated1.10.2004.

2. The petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate appointment scheme,has now been transferred to Beedi Workers Welfare Fund Dispensary,Mukkudal, Tamil Nadu State. The Tribunal, while refusing to interfere with theorders of transfer, disposed of the above OA with the following directions:

“In view of the above facts and circumstances, we do not find anyinfirmity in the action taken on the part of the respondents or thereis any violation of any statutory rule and in view of the fact that therespondents have stated in their counter reply that as and whenvacancy arises the applicant could be considered for her transfer,we do not find any reason to interfere with the transfer order.However, we find that the applicant deserves sympatheticconsideration. The respondents shall consider the case of theapplicant sympathetically as and when vacancies are available atSiddipet or anywhere in A.P.”

Against the said order, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a widowand it will be very difficult for her to work at Tamil Nadu. It is further submittedthat there is a vacancy at Siddipet, Medak District and also at Hyderabad,where she could be accommodated.

4. We have also heard Mr.A.Rajasekhar Reddy, learned Standing Counselappearing for respondents.

5. The Tribunal has directed the respondents to consider the matter onsympathetical lines. We also find that the petitioner being a widow, she has tobe accommodated in the nearest place possible. Even though the Rules permittransfer, yet it cannot be said that she should be transferred from AndhraPradesh to Tamil Nadu State. Considering the facts though we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal, we direct the authorities to considerthe case of the petitioner by posting her anywhere in Andhra Pradesh includingHyderabad or Siddipet, Medak District, as stated by the learned counsel for thepetitioner.

6. With the direction indicated above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.

-------------------------------

(G.BIKSHAPATHY, J.)

30[th] December, 2004.

-------------------------------

(P.S.NARAYANA, J.)

SSR

1 The Director General, (Labour Welfare), Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi - 11.Labour, New Delhi - 11.

2 The Welfare Commissioner, Labour Welfare Organisation, Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad. Kendriya Sadan, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad.

3 The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad.

4 2 CD copies.

You have used today's free searches. Sign in, for free, to keep searching without a limit.

Compass reads the judgments for you and finds the paragraphs for and against your question. Sign in to use it.

My Vault follows judgments for you and records every later decision that cites them. Sign in to keep one.

Sign in to download the court's PDF. The full text stays free to read here.

Sign in, for free, to download the court copy. Reading the full text here stays open to everyone.

Search and read Indian judgments without limits, save them to My Vault and find the relevant paragraphs with Compass.

Open the sign-in page instead