Telangana High Court
WA/1488/2008 of The Inspector General of Police, Vs Y. Krishna Rao on 29 December 2008
COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1488 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT
PRESENTHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVEANDHON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY
WRIT APPEAL No.1488 of 2008
(Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Orderdated 15/07/2008 in WP NO : 12834 OF 2008 on the file of the HighCourt.)
Between:
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.
1. The Inspector General of Police, Southern Sector, CRPF, RoadNo.1, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 2. The Director General, CRPF, CGO Complex, New Delhi.
...Appellants
And
Y. Krishna Rao, S/o. Y. Venkateshwar Rao,Chandrayanagutta, Hyderabad. ...Respondent Counsel for the appellants : Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy Assistant Solicitor General.
Counsel for the respondent : Sri B.G. Ravindra Reddy The Court passed the following:
JUDGMENT:(Per Anil R. Dave, C.J.)
Admit.
Looking to the peculiar facts of the case, the learned Advocateshave agreed for disposing of this appeal finally.
The respondent is working as a Sub-Inspector under theappellants. By an order dated 23[rd] May, 2008, he was transferred fromHyderabad to 12[th] Battalion, Assam. Being aggrieved by the saidorder of transfer, the respondent had filed Writ Petition No.12834 of2008 because, according to the respondent, he could not have beentransferred within four years from his posting at Hyderabad. It was hiscase that he was transferred to Hyderabad by an order dated 11[th]August, 2004 and, therefore, he could not have been transferred in themonth of May, 2008 as the period of four years had not beencompleted at that time.
After hearing the learned Advocates, the learned Single Judgehas allowed the petition by passing the following operative order:
“In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and theimpugned order, dated 23.05.2008, insofar as it relates to thepetitioner, is set aside. It is, however, left open to the respondents totransfer the petitioner in the next summer chain transfers. There shallbe no order as to costs.”
By virtue of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge hasnot only quashed the impugned order of transfer, but also restrainedthe appellants from transferring the respondent till next summer chaintransfers.
It is pertinent to note that in the month of August, 2008, therespondent had completed the period of four years at Hyderabad and,therefore, according to normal policy, he could have been transferred. Moreover, in public interest, a member of a uniformed force can betransferred at any time. There cannot be any hard and fast rule with regard to transfer because administrative exigencies require transfer ofsome personnel immediately and as the respondent is working inCentral Reserve Police Force, for security or administrative reasons,such a personnel can be transferred at any time.
In our opinion, the learned Single Judge could not haverestrained the appellants from transferring the respondent till summerchain transfers i.e. till the summer of 2009.
In the circumstances, we quash and set aside the order passedby the learned Single Judge and permit the appellants to transfer therespondent as per the administrative exigencies.
At this stage, the learned Advocate appearing for the respondenthas submitted that because of certain personal difficulties includingeducation of the children of the respondent, the respondent would liketo be accommodated for some time at Hyderabad. According to thelearned Advocate, as per the general transfer policy, the crucial datefor completion of period of four years is 31[st] March of a particular year. He has, therefore, submitted that at least up to 31[st] March, 2009, therespondent should be continued at Hyderabad.
If the respondent has any personal difficulties, he can make arepresentation to the appellants and we are sure that the appellantswill consider the same and do the needful to help him to the extentpossible.
Subject to the above observation, the writ appeal is disposed ofwith no order as to costs.
ANIL R. DAVE, C.J.
29[th] December, 2008
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
To1. Two C.D. copies.
ARS
……REGISTRAR