Telangana High Court
B.Emmaniyelu vs The State Of Telangana on 4 February, 2021
Author: M.S.Ramachandra Rao
Bench: M.S.Ramachandra Rao, T.Vinod Kumar
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
AND
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.21317 OF 2020
O R D E R:
(Per Sri Justice M.S.Ramachandra Rao) Pursuant to a Recruitment Notification of 2011 issued by the then Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in Irrigation and CAD Department of the then composite State of Andhra Pradesh in Zone-V which is presently part of the new State of Telangana.
2. The composite State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated into residuary State of Andhra Pradesh and new State of Telangana under the A.P. Reorganisation Act, 2014 with effect from 02.06.2014.
3. A Circular Memo No.9940/SPF-MC/2015 dt.07.08.2017 was issued by both State Governments providing for inter-State transfer of Government employees between both States in the following categories:
A. Inter-State transfer of spouses.
B. Mutual transfer of local cadre employees, i.e.,
District/ Zonal/ Multi Zonal cadre employees, and C. Mutual transfer of all State Cadre Employees where the final allocation has been notified by the Central Government.
4. Through an application submitted on 28.08.2017, the petitioner sought a mutual transfer with Smt. D.K. Swathi, an Assistant Executive Engineer, who was willing for inter-State transfer from the Government of Andhra Pradesh to the Government of Telangana. 2
5. On 19.03.2018 through Memo No.8284/Ser.I(1)/2017 (AEEM)-3, the Irrigation and CAD (Services.I) Department, State of Telangana rejected it quoting Para 6(g) of the above Circular stating that both employees are having same local status, i.e., State of Andhra Pradesh.
6. Without assailing the same, the petitioner has now filed this Writ Petition contending that his spouse Smt. A.Shanti was working as Junior Lecturer in HCM Junior College for Girls (Aided), Ongole falling in the residuary State of Andhra Pradesh; that Para 6(g) of the Circular Memo, which dealt with request transfer on spouse grounds, had provided that only one spouse will be transferred to other State where the spouse is working on regular basis in the State Government subject to condition that one of the spouses must be local to the State to which transfer is sought, and that such transfers were restricted to State Government employees only; but the portion of Para 6(g) confining it only to State Government employees was held to be bad in law by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dt.12.10.2018 passed in W.P.Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018, and the Division Bench directed that the benefit of the Circular Memo be given to State Government employees whose spouses may even be employed in the service of Central Government/ Central Government Public Sector Undertakings/ Universities/ Local Bodies/ Scheduled Banks/ State Government Institutions etc., also.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after this Judgment was delivered on 12.10.2018, the petitioner ought to have been given another chance to seek transfer on spouse ground as he would then 3 be entitled to be transferred to the State of Andhra Pradesh where his spouse was employed.
8. Sri P.Govind Reddy, learned Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh appearing for respondents 2, 4 and 6 however contends that the initial application for inter-State transfer made by the petitioner on 28.08.2017 was not on spouse ground, but it was on mutual transfer basis and after the same is rejected on 19.03.2018, the petitioner is trying to take advantage of the order dt.12.10.2018 in W.P.Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018 in the year 2020; that as per Para 6(a) of the above Circular Memo dt.07.08.2017, inter-State transfer request should be made within one month from 07.08.2017 and such a request made 3½ years after 07.08.2017, cannot be entertained.
9. He further contended that the petitioner was however permitted by the State Government of Telangana through Memo dt.03.12.2019 for inter-State deputation on spouse ground for an initial period of 3 years and that he is currently working in Water Resource Department of State of Andhra Pradesh.
10. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
11. We find considerable force in the contention of the learned Special Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh that the petitioner is not entitled to seek inter-State transfer on spouse ground at this point of time in view of Para 6(a) of the Guidelines framed in the Circular dt.07.08.2017 issued by both States. Had the petitioner sought for transfer on spouse ground within one month period stipulated in Para 6(a) of the said Circular, and had it been rejected on the ground that his 4 spouse was not the State Government employee, then the petitioner would have been entitled to avail the benefit conferred by order dt.12.10.2018 in W.P.Nos.14006 and 14062 of 2018.
12. We may also point out that the petitioner has not even challenged the Proceeding dt.19.03.2018 issued by the State of Telangana declining his request for mutual transfer.
13. In any event since the petitioner is currently working in the State of Andhra Pradesh on a three year deputation granted to him by the State of Telangana, we are not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner in this Writ Petition.
14. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
15. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
____________________________ M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, J ____________________ T.VINOD KUMAR, J Date: 04 -02-2021 Svv