Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 789 (AP)

A. K. Mishra v. Union of India

2008-09-17

G.BHAVANI PRASAD, GHULAM MOHAMMED

body2008
Judgment :- Ghulam Mohammed, J. This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 18-08-2008 passed in O.A.No.420 of 2008 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, by virtue of which, the Tribunal refused to interfere with the transfer order issued by second respondent. 2. The petitioners – applicants have filed the above O.A. challenging the transfer order dated 24-6-2008 issued by the second respondent and sought the following relief: “To direct the respondents to call for the records pertaining to the order No.PES/0829/TRANSFER/RP CELL dated 24-06-2008 of the Senior Administrative Officer/Manager (personnel) the mass internal transfer order to the applicants from the Reproduction Cell to the Naval Dockyard’s different branches without any sanctioned post there in the Naval Dockyard and quash the same by setting aside the order. Direct the respondents not to transfer the applicants from RPC(V) to the non-sanctioned post in Naval Dockyard without statutory order from the Chief of Naval Headquarter, New Delhi by declaring the action of the 2nd respondent is arbitrary, illegal and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.” 3. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned standing counsel appearing for respondents. Learned counsel for petitioners contended that the transfer order is passed by the authority, who does not have jurisdiction and that the petitioner is holding a technical post and the place to which he is transferred does not have any sanctioned post. 4. In the instant case, the transfer order is sought to be questioned and that too in respect of first petitioner only, as it is recorded by the Tribunal that all other petitioners have joined duty at the respective places pursuant to transfer orders. It is settled law that the transfer is an incidence of service and the court will not interfere with the transfer order. It is for the authority to transfer an employee to any place depending upon the exigency and the petitioner, being an employee, cannot have any grievance against the transfer order. It is not the case of petitioner that he is transferred to hold a post, which is lower in rank pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings. It is for the authority to transfer an employee to any place depending upon the exigency and the petitioner, being an employee, cannot have any grievance against the transfer order. It is not the case of petitioner that he is transferred to hold a post, which is lower in rank pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings. Apart from this, an employee is obligated to discharge the duties assigned to him by the employer, who in the instant case, is the Eastern Naval Command, which is involved in the safety and security of the country. The petitioner cannot claim to be retained at the place of his choice as a matter of right. In the circumstances, we do not see any infirmity, legal or otherwise, in the impugned order. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the stage of admission.