Mohammed Fahimuddin v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT And HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WRIT PETITION No.20985 of 2017 ORDER : (Oral) (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Suresh Kumar Kait) Vide the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 04.04.2017, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.2926 of 2016, whereby, the O.A. filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2.

The petitioner filed the O.A. under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 praying to declare the action of the 1st respondent in issuing impugned Memo dated 04.04.2016 insofar as rejecting the case of the petitioner to transfer him from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam and not fulfilling the promise made by the 1st respondent that the case of the petitioner will be considered for transfer again during 2016, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of guidelines issued in G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 10.06.2016, and consequently direct the 1st respondent to transfer the petitioner from Srikakulam to Visakhapatnam in the office of Deputy Transport Commissioner, Visakhapatnam, by obtaining relaxation orders from the 2nd respondent.

3.

It is not in dispute that on the day when the petitioner filed O.A., he had not completed 5 years of service at Srikakulam, which is required as per G.O.Ms.No.157, dated 19.03.2008. Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is going to complete five years of

SKK, J & Dr.SA, J W.P.No.20985 of 2017 service at Srikakulam, thus, he is due for transfer. He further submits, the petitioner is hardworking and has generated maximum revenue to the Government even though Srikakulam is a backward district in the State. Srikakulam District is on top of the list in the State having less non-payment vehicles and having less VCR pending. The 2nd respondent also appreciated the efforts of the petitioner, but no benefits have been given to him. He submits that the sincere and efficient service of the petitioner became a curse to him and his family. Petitioner has pointed out the following affects due to his posting at Srikakulam - (a) Monetary loss in HRA, as 12% at Srikakulam and 20% at Visakhapatnam;

(b) Petitioner is working at Srikakulam since 2012 and facing tough situation in discharging his duties due to obligation;

(c) His family members are away from working station; and (d) Petitioner has already completed 29 years of service and has got the left over service of 4 years and is going to retire from service on superannuation on 30th of June 2021.

Counsel for petitioner submits that if the request of petitioner is considered, this would be his last transfer.

4.

It is not in dispute that the transfer is not in the domain of the judicial review. It is upto the concerned department, however, Courts will certainly come to the rescue if there are malafides behind such

SKK, J & Dr.SA, J W.P.No.20985 of 2017 transfer and if it is against the policy. In the present case, as the petitioner has already completed Five years of service at Srikakulam and is at fag-end of his service and is going to retire on 30th of June 2021, we hereby dispose of the present petition directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically, as it is stated, one Sri T.Narsimhulu, Administrative Officer, is going to retire from service on 30.06.2017.

5.

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ SURESH KUMAR KAIT, J __________________________ DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 28th June 2017 ajr