Telangana High Court
Gopi Reddy Shanker vs The State Of Telangana on 23 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.23804 of 2025
THE 23TH DAY OF APRIL 2026
Between:
Gopi Reddy Shanker.
...Petitioner
AND
The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Energy Department and others.
...Respondents
ORDER:
The Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondent No.2 in issuing proceedings vide Memo No.SE/OP/B'Hills/HYD/PO/JAOADM.A4/D.No.127/2025 dated 15.05.2025, posting the petitioner to the 1912 Call Centre at SCADA Circle Office, as illegal and arbitrary.
2. Heard Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri N.Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Southern Power Distribution Company Limited (TGSPDCL) 2 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 appearing for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the material available on record.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Attender in the year 1995 and promoted/transferred as Record Assistant in the year 2001. Thereafter, he was posted to work on DTRs to assist the field staff in rectifying power outrages during summer on 25.04.2025. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner made a complaint to the Labour Department stating that the said posting was unsuitable as it was technical in nature and he lacked the requisite technical qualifications. The Labour Department forwarded the said complaint for necessary action and thereafter, the respondent No.3 issued the impugned proceedings dated 15.05.2025, posting the petitioner to the 1912 Call Centre at SCADA Circle Office, Banjara Hills, which requires fluency in English and good communication skills. The petitioner is not fluent in English, is unable to discharge call centre duties and is also suffering from an ENT problem, which has increased on account of the call centre work. The said posting by the respondent No.2 is 3 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 punitive and mala fide. Aggrieved by the impugned posting, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.06.2025 to the respondent No.2, which was acknowledged and is still pending consideration. In view of the same, learned Counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to allow the Writ Petition by setting aside the impugned proceedings in Memo No.SE/OP/B'Hills/HYD/PO/JAOADM.A4/D.No.127/2025 dated 15.05.2025 and directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Record Assistant in the Parent Circle.
4. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 basing on the counter affidavit submits that the petitioner, who is working as Record Assistant, was sent on deputation to the 1912 Call Centre at SCADA Circle Office, Corporate Office of the respondent No.2. The contention of the petitioner that he lacks knowledge, education or fluency in English to work there is incorrect, as employees from all circles are deputed to the call centre on rotation, the calls mainly relate to information regarding power cuts and restoration, and such information is relayed to the Fuse Office Center, which does not require higher 4 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 education, technical qualifications or fluent English and any employee can effectively discharge such duties in any language. The alleged ENT problem and outpatient treatment are no bar to working in the Call Centre, as the duty involves only providing information on power cuts. The posting is not a transfer, much less punitive or mala fide, but a routine posting on rotation basis. The petitioner is to be replaced after a few months and all employees must be ready to work wherever they are posted. In view of the above, learned Standing Counsel requested this Court to dismiss the Writ Petition.
5. After hearing both sides and on a perusal of the entire material on record, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner, who is substantively working as Record Assistant in the respondent-corporation, has been posted on deputation to the Call Centre in shift system without his consent and the petitioner is not in a position to take up call centre duties in view of his ENT problem. The respondents in their counter did not deny the averments of the petitioner that he was appointed to a substantive post of Record 5 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 Assistant, but he has been posted on deputation to the Call Centre. The contention of the petitioner is that in all other circles, the respondents have posted artisans in the Call Centre, whereas, in the case of the petitioner being a Record Assistant, he has been posted to the Call Centre to attend calls even during night hours, despite his ill health. The respondents are required to utilize the services of the petitioner in the post of Record Assistant in his usual appointment but not for other duties.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Inder Singh 1 at paragraph No.18 has categorically held as follows:
18. The concept of "deputation" is well understood in service law and has a recognised meaning. "Deputation" has a different connotation in service law and the dictionary meaning of the word "deputation" is of no help. In simple words "deputation" means service outside the cadre or outside the parent department.
Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to a post outside his cadre, that is to say, to another department on a temporary basis. After the expiry period of deputation the employee has to come back to his parent department to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he has earned promotion in his parent department as per the Recruitment Rules. Whether the transfer is outside the normal field of deployment or not is decided by the authority who controls the service or post from which the employee is transferred. There can be no deputation without the consent of the person so deputed and he would, therefore, know his rights and privileges in the deputation 1 (1997) 8 SCC 372 6 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 post. The law on deputation and repatriation is quite settled as we have also seen in various judgments which we have referred to above.
The above Judgment would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case, as the deputation was without the consent of the petitioner and outside regular duties of the petitioner.
7. In the light of the above said Judgment, the respondents cannot utilize the services of the petitioner as telephone operator in the Call Centre, on deputation, without his consent. Posting the petitioner as Telephone Operator in the Call Centre, without his consent is contrary to the Fundamental Rules. In view of the same, the impugned order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.2 by posting the petitioner on deputation as Telephone Operator in the 1912 Call Centre is liable to be set aside as the same is illegal and contrary to law. The petitioner has to be continued as Record Assistant in his parent circle as per the service conditions.
8. In view of the above findings, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside the impugned proceedings in 7 SK, J W.P.No.23804 of 2025 Memo No.SE/OP/B'Hills/HYD/PO/JAOADM.A4/D.No.127/ 2025 dated 15.05.2025 issued by the respondent No.2 and directing the respondents to repatriate the petitioner as Record Assistant in the Parent Circle forthwith.
9. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
_____________________ JUSTICE K.SARATH Date: 23.04.2026.
spk