Telangana High Court
K.Kodanda vs The Telangana State Road Transport ... on 2 April, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN
WRIT PETITION No.29434 of 2023
DATE: 02.04.2026
BETWEEN:
K.Kodanda and another
....Petitioners
AND
The Telangana State Road Transport
Corporation, Represented by its
Managing Director and others.
....Respondents
ORDER
Heard Sri P.Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms.D.Sai Mahitha, learned counsel representing Sri R.Anurag, learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (respondent No.1) and Sri Kallakuri Srinivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (respondent No.2) and perused the record.
2. The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:
"......to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring that the action of the respondents in not transferring the petitioners to units of APSRTC in the present Andhra Pradesh state from TSRTC (Telangana State) is as bad, arbitrary, illegal, unjust, discriminatory by setting aside Procs. No.E3/690(05)/2022-PO-II, dt. 18-6-2022 of the 2nd respondent herein and consequently direct the respondents to transfer the petitioners from ::2::
TSRTC to the APSRTC units in the present Andhra Pradesh State and direct the 2nd respondent to allow and continue the petitioners in the units of APSRTC (present AP State) on spouse grounds and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper."
Factual background (in brief)
3. The 1st petitioner was initially appointed as a casual Conductor on 10.01.1986 at Mehdipatnam Depot under the then undivided Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC), falling within the Bhagyanagar Region (presently forming part of the State of Telangana), whose services were subsequently regularized with effect from 01.09.1986. Thereafter, in the course of 1st petitioner's service, he was appointed and promoted to the posts of Junior Assistant (Finance) in the year 2009, Senior Assistant (Finance) in the year 2015, and ultimately to the post of Deputy Superintendent (Finance) with effect from 09.06.2019. 1st petitioner's seniority has at all relevant times been maintained in the Greater Hyderabad Zone, which is a zonal cadre.
4. The 2nd petitioner was initially engaged as a contract/casual Conductor on 31.05.2007 at Vikarabad Depot in Ranga Reddy District (presently in the State of Telangana), whose services were regularized with effect from 01.01.2010. 2nd petitioner continues to hold the post of Conductor, which is a local cadre post, and her seniority is maintained within the Ranga Reddy Region.
::3::
5. During the course of their service, both the petitioners were deputed to various depots situated in the territories of the erstwhile undivided State of Andhra Pradesh. The 1st petitioner was deputed to Guntakal Depot in Kadapa Zone for a temporary period and was repatriated to his parent zone, namely Greater Hyderabad Zone, on 05.02.2014, i.e., prior to the appointed day of bifurcation of the State. The 2nd petitioner was deputed to Mangalagiri Depot in Guntur Region from the year 2011 to 2017 and was thereafter repatriated to her parent region, namely Ranga Reddy Region, on 30.06.2017. Such deputations were purely temporary in nature and did not alter their substantive cadre or seniority position.
6. It is the case of the petitioners that they are natives of the present State of Andhra Pradesh, the 1st petitioner being from Kurnool District and the 2nd petitioner from Guntur District, and that they have pursued their education in the said districts and that their spouses are employed in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Accordingly, the petitioners sought transfer from TSRTC to APSRTC by placing reliance upon Circular Memo No.9940/SPF&MC/2015 dated 07.08.2017 issued jointly by the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, wherein guidelines were framed inter alia permitting inter-State transfers on spouse grounds. The petitioners contend that the said Circular Memo, read with the guidelines dated 24.08.2017, also contemplates consideration of such transfers even in respect of local and zonal cadre employees.
::4::
7. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in considering their request, the petitioners earlier approached this Court by filing W.P.No.5422 of 2021 seeking a direction for their inter-State transfer to APSRTC on spouse grounds. By order dated 08.02.2022, this Court disposed of the said writ petition, directing the petitioners to submit a fresh representation and further directing the respondents to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a stipulated period.
8. Pursuant to the said directions, the petitioners submitted a joint representation dated 05.03.2022 to the respondents seeking their transfer to APSRTC. The said representation was considered by the 2nd respondent, who, vide impugned proceedings bearing No.E3/690(05)/2022-PO-II dated 18.06.2022, rejected the request of the petitioners.
9. The impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2022, inter alia, record the following grounds for rejection:
a) That the Circular Memo dated 07.08.2017 applies only to State Government employees and not to employees of Public Sector Undertakings, Corporations, or entities included in Schedule IX of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014 (for short '2014 Act'), such as APSRTC;
::5::
b) That the petitioners are borne on Zonal and Local cadres respectively, and not on State Cadre posts, and therefore are not eligible for inter-State allocation;
c) That the 2014 Act provides only for one-time permanent allocation of State cadre employees as on the appointed day and does not contemplate inter-State transfers post bifurcation on any ground including spouse grounds; and
d) that APSRTC employees have been absorbed into the Government of Andhra Pradesh, whereas TSRTC continues as a separate entity (at the relevant time), thereby placing the employees on different footing.
10. Being aggrieved by the said proceedings dated 18.06.2022 and contending that the same are arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, and contrary to the governing circulars and principles of equality, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition. Submissions on behalf of petitioners
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners have made the following submissions:
i. That the Circular Memo bearing No. 9940/SPF&MC/2015 dated 07.08.2017, issued jointly by the Chief Secretaries of the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, expressly provides for inter-State transfers of employees, inter alia, on spouse grounds. The said Circular Memo, read with the ::6::
guidelines issued subsequently, contemplates consideration of such transfers not only in respect of State cadre employees but also in respect of local, district, zonal and multi-zonal cadre employees, subject to the conditions stipulated therein. ii. That subsequent to the issuance of the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2022, there has been a material change in circumstances by virtue of the enactment of the Telangana State Road Transport Corporation (Absorption of Employees into Government Service) Act, 2023 (for short '2023 Act'), which received the assent of the Governor on 14.09.2023 and was published in the Telangana Gazette on 15.09.2023. Under Section 3 of the said Act, all employees of TSRTC stand absorbed into Government service on and from the date of commencement of the Act. Consequently, the petitioners are now Government employees, and thus, the principal ground cited in the impugned order that the Circular Memo is applicable only to Government employees, ceases to exist. iii. That the action of the respondents in denying them the benefit of inter-State transfer is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as several similarly situated employees have been granted inter-State transfers between TSRTC and APSRTC, including in cases involving local and zonal cadre employees.
::7::
iv. That the petitioners are natives of the successor State of Andhra Pradesh and their families including parents and children are residing therein, and their spouses are gainfully employed within the State of Andhra Pradesh in Government service.
v. In such circumstances, denial of the benefit of spouse ground transfer to the petitioners, while extending the same to other similarly situated employees, amounts to hostile discrimination and arbitrary exercise of power.
Submissions on behalf of respondents
12. Learned Standing Counsel for the TSRTC and APSRTC have made their submissions as under:
i. That the 1st petitioner has retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2025. In view of the said development, no cause of action survives insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, as the relief sought in the writ petition pertains to inter-State transfer, which is a service benefit available only to a serving employee. Upon retirement, the said relief has become infructuous.
ii. That the 2nd petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Vikarabad Depot, which is a local cadre post in the Ranga Reddy Region. Under the applicable service regulations and cadre structure, the seniority, postings and transfers of such ::8::
employees are confined to their respective local or zonal cadres. That the 2nd petitioner does not belong to the State Cadre, and therefore, she is not eligible for inter-State allocation or transfer under the applicable framework. iii. That the Circular Memo dated 07.08.2017 was issued by the State Governments specifically in respect of State Government employees. The APSRTC and TSRTC are statutory corporations constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, and are included in Schedule IX of the 2014 Act. In the absence of a specific adoption of the said Circular Memo by the Corporations, the policy guidelines applicable to Government employees cannot be extended to employees of such statutory corporations.
iv. That the allocation of employees between the successor States and Corporations was governed by the provisions of 2014 Act and the guidelines framed thereunder. The 2014 Act provides only for one-time permanent allocation of employees borne on State Cadre as on the appointed day, i.e., 02.06.2015. The petitioners, being Zonal and Local cadre employees, do not fall within the category of employees capable of allocation under the said Act. Moreover, there is no provision either in the 2014 Act or in the allocation guidelines enabling inter-State transfer of employees on spouse grounds after the bifurcation.
::9::
Therefore, the claim of the petitioners is dehors the statutory scheme.
v. That the petitioners were deputed to depots in the territories of the present State of Andhra Pradesh purely on temporary basis and at their own request. Such deputation was time-bound and subject to repatriation upon completion of the deputation period. The repatriation of the petitioners to their parent zones, namely Greater Hyderabad Zone and Ranga Reddy Region respectively, was effected in accordance with the terms of deputation and therefore the petitioners cannot rely upon such deputation to claim inter-State transfer.
vi. That the 2023 Act merely provides for absorption of TSRTC employees into Government service, subject to the rules to be framed under Section 5 thereof, and the said Act does not, ipso facto, confer any right upon the petitioners to seek inter-State transfer to the transport department or undertaking of another State. Furthermore, the date of commencement and the detailed service conditions are subject to notification and rule- making, and the provisions of the Act cannot be applied retrospectively so as to invalidate the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2022, which were passed in accordance with the legal position prevailing at the relevant time.
::10::
13. We have taken note of the respective submissions and the material placed on record.
Consideration by this Court
14. It is to be noted that the relief sought in the present writ petition is for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to effect transfer of the petitioners from TSRTC to APSRTC and to permit them to continue in the units of APSRTC. It is trite law that a writ of mandamus is issued to command a public authority to perform a public or statutory duty. For issuance of such a writ, the petitioner must establish the existence of a subsisting legal right and a corresponding legal duty cast upon the respondents as on the date of consideration of the writ petition.
15. In the present case, it has come on record, and is not in dispute, that the 1st petitioner has retired from service in the year 2025 upon attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly, the writ petition was instituted in the year 2023, at which point of time the 1st petitioner was in service. However, during the pendency of the writ proceedings, he ceased to be an employee of TSRTC. The relief sought by the 1st petitioner, seeking transfer to APSRTC, is one which can be granted only in favour of a person who continues to be in service. In service law jurisprudence, a transfer is an incidence of service and implies the existence of a subsisting employer-employee relationship. It involves a change of posting within or across ::11::
establishments without severance of service. Once such relationship stands terminated by operation of law on account of superannuation, the question of directing transfer of such person to another organization does not arise.
16. However, inasmuch as the 2nd petitioner continues to be in service, the grievance raised by her requires consideration on merits. Therefore, this Court proceeds to examine the case insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned.
17. At this juncture, it is necessary, for a proper appreciation of the facts and the applicable law, to extract paragraph 5 of Circular dated 07.08.2017 for the sake of convenience:
5. In addition to the above there are cases of State cadre employees whose spouses are working in other State and whose request to facilitate their serving in the same State could not be considered due to the pendency of allocation of employees. The Government have decided that where the final allocation of a State Cadre employee has been done by the Central Government and the spouses happen to be in different States, the request of the spouse shall be considered to the State to which the State cadre employee's spouse is allocated in the course of allocation of its employees between the two States. Any residuary cases remaining without being considered may be done as part of this Order.
A plain reading of the above Circular discloses that it was issued by the Chief Secretaries to the Governments of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, pursuant to the recommendations of the State Advisory Committee, for laying down guidelines to consider inter-State transfers of employees on spouse grounds and on mutual basis. The preamble indicates that the benefit was intended to extend to Local Cadre as well as State Cadre employees. However, ::12::
the operative portion in paragraph 5 of the Circular, clearly employs the expression "State Government employees" and is addressed to "All Departments of the A.P. Secretariat" and "All Heads of Departments of the Government of Andhra Pradesh/Telangana." The tenor and language of the Circular unmistakably indicate that it was intended to govern employees borne on the rolls of the respective State Governments.
18. It is pertinent to note that the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2022 have taken the view that the said Circular is applicable only to State Government employees. This Court finds no reason to take a different view. APSRTC and TSRTC are (as of the date of the impugned proceedings) not departments of the State Government; they are statutory corporations constituted under the provisions of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. They are distinct legal entities governed by their own service regulations, recruitment rules, and cadre structures. In the absence of any material demonstrating that the said Circular Memo has been specifically adopted or extended to employees of such statutory corporations, the petitioners cannot claim any vested or enforceable right under the said Circular.
19. It is also pertinent to note that the 2014 Act, in its IX Schedule, enumerates institutions, including APSRTC, whose employees were subject to a separate mechanism of allocation between the successor States. The allocation of employees in respect ::13::
of such corporations was governed by the principles framed by the competent authorities, including the "Guidelines for Permanent Allocation of State Level Posts" issued in 2017. The said guidelines provide for allocation only in respect of State Cadre posts. Insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, she holds the post of Conductor, which is a Local Cadre post, whose appointment, seniority, and service conditions are confined to the Ranga Reddy Region in the State of Telangana. The 2nd petitioner does not belong to the State Cadre so as to fall within the ambit of allocation or inter-State transfer under the said framework.
20. Further, the petitioners seek to invoke and apply a Circular issued by the State Government to a field which is otherwise governed by a distinct statutory and regulatory framework applicable to employees of statutory corporations. The two operate in different domains and are not interchangeable. A policy or circular framed for State Government employees cannot, in the absence of a specific adoption, statutory backing, or express extension, be imported into or read as part of the service regulations governing employees of a statutory corporation.
21. The bifurcation of the erstwhile APSRTC into two separate corporations, namely APSRTC and TSRTC, was a consequence of the 2014 Act. The allocation of employees between the successor entities was not in the nature of a routine administrative transfer, but a one-
::14::
time statutory exercise governed by specific principles. As reflected in the "Guidelines for Permanent Allocation of State Level Posts", the following principles governed such allocation, which are extracted hereunder:
GUIDE LINES FOR PERMANENT ALLOCATION OF STATE LEVEL POSTS:
1. The posts of the un-divided APSRTC will be allocated between the Successor Corporations with reference to the territorial posts relatable to the geographic area of the Successor states.
a) The territorial posts located in the geographical area of a successor state go to that successor state corporation.
b) The sanctioned posts of Head Office i.e., State cadre posts of state level shall be allocated in the ratio of number of districts i.e., 13:10 (residual A.P Telangana) as already resolved as per the Board resolution No.78/2014 dated 15-5-2014 in the undivided APSRTC prior to the bifurcation of the state.
2.PRINCIPLES GUIDEING THE ALLOCATION:
a) Persons who immediately before the appointed day are serving on substantive basis in connection with the affairs of the undivided state of Andhra Pradesh shall be considered for allocation. Employees holding posts on purely ad-hoc basis (under Reg.30 of APSRTC Recruitment Regulations) immediately before the 'appointed day' shall be considered against substantive posts (or regular) held by them on the 'appointed day' if any. The appointed day for APSRTC shall be 2-6-2015.
b) Permanent allocation of employees would be based on final distribution of posts including vacant posts approved by the Corporation Board vide resolution No.78/2014 dated 15-5-2014.
c) Allocable employees shall be considered for allotment between the successor states on the basis seniority list as available on June 02, 2015.
d) The employees to be allocated would include persons who are absconding, those on long absenteeism, those on leave preparatory to retirement or other kinds of leave, those under suspension, persons undergoing training and employees on deputation, including foreign service deputation. There shall not be any case of an employee not being allocated to either of the successor states.
e) Options were already called for and exercised by the state cadre employees who were holding allocable posts during April, 2015. The employees working in state cadre posts shall be allotted to the successor corporations on permanent basis as per the options already exercised by them as verified and certified by the authorities concerned.
::15::
f) The allocation shall be done in order of seniority as available on June, 02, 2015. Those who have opted, who are local candidates' (as per the spirit of A.P. Public Employment, organization of local cadres and regulation of District Recruitment order, 1975 with strict reference to the school records i.e. based on the place of study of class IV to X) relatable to the state to which they have opted, shall in order of their seniority, be considered for allocation first. If the allocable posts in that cadre remain and if the employees become surplus in that cadre after adjusting them against all interchangeable posts and against the vacancies in higher cadre as on 2-6-2015 in the other successor corporation, then such employees found surplus in such corporation who have opted to the state may be allocated in order of seniority. While allocating surplus employees, preference shall be given to the employees who are covered under spouse criteria under item (k) and employees facing severe medical hardship as given in item(1).
g) Vacant post or posts created subsequent to the appointed day by either state governments will by reckoned, if so desired by that state, for the purposes of final allotment of state cadre employees.
h) Employees who are not local candidates in relating to both states will be allocated on the basis of home district, after due verification and certification. Those originally from other states will be allocated on a case by case basis after considering their option.
i) Employees who are members of the scheduled castes or the scheduled tribes shall be considered for allocation on the basis of their option if they are local candidates. In the event as SC or ST employee has not exercised his option or where he has not been so allocated, he/she shall be allocated to the state where his caste or tribe, as the case may be, is included in the concerned schedule of the state.
j) Spouse of an all India Service (AIS) officer who belongs to a state cadre or is an employee of a state government institution, shall be allocated where so desired by the spouse, to the state to which the AIS officer is allocated. Further, the option of state cadre employee shall be considered as per his/her option if the spouse is an All India Service Officer and the option of the State cadre employee is to the state to which the All India Service Officer has been allotted.
k) The cases of the State cadre employees whose spouses are working in state cadre in the government or in state government institutions, local bodies and whose spouses are deemed to be allocated as per the Act, shall as far as possible, be considered for allocation to the opted state, while considering the cases of such employees, the following criteria shall be adopted.
(i) Allocation of the employee to the opted state has to be considered only if the employee or spouse are local to the opted state.
(ii) If the employee and his/her spouse are non local to the state to which he/she has opted, such option cannot be considered.
::16::
l) cases of alleviation of extreme personal hardship of state cadre employees will be exceptions to the principle.
(i) Widowed female employees may be considered for allocation to the state to which option is exercised
(ii) Handicapped persons of more than 60% disability may be allocated on the basis of option, subject to the procedure prescribed by the state government.
(iii) An employee or whose spouse or child is known to be facing serious medical hardship, in cases of cancer, open heart/ bye pass surgery and kidney transplantation/ kidney failure and continuing on dialysis shall be considered for allotment on special grounds on priority on the basis of option, subject to strict proof of verification as per the procedure prescribed by the government in the opted stated.
m). Officers who have retired/died after the appointed day but before allocation will also be allotted.
n) Employees belonging to allocable categories of undivided APSRTC working in another department or organization on deputation /tenure basis will be allotted by the APSRTC itself.
(emphasis supplied)
22. It is to be noted that the 2nd petitioner was appointed as a Conductor in Vikarabad Depot (Ranga Reddy District) in the year 2010, which, upon bifurcation, fell within the State of Telangana, who accordingly stood allocated to TSRTC as a matter of course. Being a Local Cadre employee, 2nd petitioner was not eligible to exercise any option for allocation to the other State. The relief now sought by the 2nd petitioner is for a post-allocation inter-State transfer to another successor entity. The 2014 Act does not contemplate or provide for such transfers. The absence of any enabling provision for post-bifurcation inter-State transfer of Local Cadre employees indicates that such a course was not intended by the legislature. Permitting such transfers dehors the statutory framework would amount to unsettling the finality attached to the ::17::
allocation process and would have far-reaching consequences on cadre management and administrative stability of the successor Corporations.
23. The petitioners have sought to rely upon the 2023 Act, contending that upon such absorption, the 2nd petitioner acquires the status of a Government employee and thereby becomes entitled to the benefit of the Circular Memo. This Court has examined the provisions of the said enactment. Section 3 provides that, on and from the date of commencement of the Act, all employees of TSRTC shall stand absorbed into Government service into such department as may be notified. Section 5 stipulates that, until rules are framed, the existing TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964 shall continue to govern the service conditions. The relevant provisions are extracted hereunder:
Section 3. Absorption of TSRTC Employees- Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Telangana Prohibition of Absorption of Employees of State Government Public Sector Undertakings into Public Service Act, 1997, on and from the date of commencement of this Act, all the employees of the TSRTC shall stand absorbed into Government service into such department, as may be notified by the Government.
Section 5. Regulation of Service Conditions- It shall be competent for the Government to frame such rules to regulate the service conditions of the absorbed employees of TSRTC, and the same shall bind on the absorbed employees: Provided that the TSRTC Employees (Service) Regulations, 1964, TSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963 and TSRTC Employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1967 shall continue to govern the Service conditions of the employees absorbed under this Act until further rules consequent to the absorption are framed by the Government:
Provided further that no disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be invalidated solely on the grounds of the initiation of the said proceedings by the respective appointing authorities/disciplinary ::18::
authorities as notified under the TSRTC Regulations previously applicable to the said employees absorbed into Government service.
24. While the absorption of employees into Government service is a significant development, it does not, ipso facto, confer upon the 2nd petitioner any right to claim inter-State transfer to an entity in another State, for the following reasons:
i) The impugned proceedings are dated 18.06.2022, and the validity of the said proceedings must be tested on the basis of the legal position prevailing as on that date. The subsequent enactment of 2023 Act cannot be invoked to retrospectively invalidate an order that was otherwise valid when passed.
ii) The process of absorption is not complete in all respects, inasmuch as the Government is yet to notify the specific department and frame rules governing the service conditions of the absorbed employees under Section 5. Until such exercise is completed, the employees continue to be governed by the existing TSRTC Regulations. No automatic right of inter-State transfer flows from such absorption.
iii) Even upon absorption, the 2nd petitioner would be an employee of the Government of Telangana. APSRTC is an entity under the control of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. An inter-
State transfer between two distinct State entities is not a matter of right and requires a specific enabling provision, which is conspicuously absent in the present case.
::19::
25. The reliance placed by the petitioners on the fact that they were earlier deputed to depots in the State of Andhra Pradesh which entitles them to the transfer sought, is misconceived. Deputation is, by its very nature, a temporary arrangement, which does not alter the substantive cadre or parent organization of an employee. The 2nd petitioner was deputed to Mangalagiri Depot and was repatriated to her parent unit in Vikarabad in the year 2017. Such repatriation was in accordance with the terms of deputation and does not create any vested right to seek permanent absorption or transfer.
26. The petitioners have also alleged discrimination, contending that similarly situated employees have been granted inter-State transfers. However, no specific instances have been placed before this Court demonstrating that Local or Zonal Cadre employees of TSRTC were permanently transferred to APSRTC on spouse grounds after bifurcation. In the absence of any material establishing differential treatment among similarly situated persons, the plea of discrimination cannot be sustained.
Conclusion
27. For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition, insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned, is dismissed as infructuous; and insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, it is held that she, being a Local Cadre employee, has no enforceable right to seek inter-State transfer, and that Circular ::20::
Memo dated 07.08.2017 is inapplicable to employees of statutory corporations; consequently, the impugned proceedings dated 18.06.2022 are upheld as valid and legal.
28. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, stand closed.
_______________________________
APARESH KUMAR SINGH, CJ
______________________________
G.M.MOHIUDDIN,J
Date: 02.04.2026
SZT