Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Puldindi Eswara Rao vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 4 August, 2017
rs one, a IN THE CENTRAPABMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ' HYDERABAD BENCH:: HYDERABAD
0.A./020/00798/2013 DATE OF ORDER: 04" August 2017 BETWEEN:
Pulidindi Eswara Rao, S/o. Ramanna, Aged about 53 years, Occ: Telecom Mechanic, Q/o. Telephone Exchange, Duddivari Agraharam, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. R/o. H. No. 1-2-94/2, Rajikipeta, Black Bridge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District. .. . APPLICANT AND l. The Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep. by its General Manager Telecom District, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
2. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (Administration), O/o. General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District.
3. The Sub-Divisional Engineer (Phones and Groups), Amalapuram, East Godavari District. 4, J. Vaneswara Rao, S/o. Krishna Rao, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Telecom Mechanic, (Working on Deputation Basis at Amalapuram), O/o. Telephone Exchange, Devagupatham, East Godavari District.
....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate for Mr. P.V.V. Satyanarayana, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents - Mr. A. Radhakrishna, SC for BSNL Mr. K. Ram Murthy, Advocate for R-4 CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. V. AJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (JUDL.) HON'BLE MRS. MINNIE MATHEW, MEMBER (ADMN.) Mis A Heard Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. A. Radha Krishna, learned Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3. None for the private Respondent No.4.
2. The OA has been filed questioning the transfer order dated 17.06.2013, whereunder, the applicant, who was working as Telecom Mechanic at Amalapuram, was transferred to Devaguptham.
3, In view of the orders passed by this Tribunal on 02.07.2013 and the subsequent orders of the Hon'ble High Court dated 29.01.2014 in WP No. 2140/2014, the applicant has been continued at Amalapuram till date.
4. The law on the issue of transfer is well settled. No employee can insist that he should be continued at a particular place for a particular time. Administrative exigencies for transferring Government servants keep on changing year after year. Period of 4 years has elapsed from the date of the impugned order and that the applicant has been continuing at Amalapuram for all these years by virtue of the aforesaid orders of the Courts.
5. In the circumstances, the OA is allowed by quashing the impugned transfer order, however, by granting liberty to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant afresh for transfer as per the prevailing administrative exigencies and in terms of the TATA WTA transfer policy in vogue. CERTIFIED TRUE COP:
a xi CASE moves OA. <7 92 (3
6. No order as to costs. Raster xj an cia DATE Ue BSc bl@ll7 ir aus foot wa ey | Iz COPY WADE READY O78. added my ay Eyeeeety C sate Tibunal hearer sarsdrajHydorabed Bose "Free Copy U/R 22 of CAT (Procedure) Rutes"