Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 677 (AP)

Union of India v. Vallam Murali

2022-07-25

AKULA VENKATA SESHA SAI, V.SUJATHA

body2022
JUDGMENT Akula Venkata Sesha Sai, J. - Heard Sri N. Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India, appearing for the petitioners, and Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the applicant-respondent, apart from perusing the material available on record. 2. Challenge in the present Writ Petition is to the order dated 16.11.2021 passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, in O.A. Nos. 929 of 2016 and 716 of 2019. The respondent herein is presently working as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Post Master (GDS BPM) in Karakambadi Branch Post Office (BO) a/w Renigunta Sub Post Office (SO), Department of Posts. The respondent herein filed O.A. No. 769 of 2019, assailing the order dated 13.08.2019 passed by the Director of Postal Services, Kurnool Region, Kurnool. By way of the said order dated 13.08.2019, petitioner No. 3 rejected the request of the respondent for his transfer to the post of BPM, APHB Colony, a/w Tirupathi North SO. In O.A. No. 929 of 2016, the respondent herein challenged the transfer of one Smt. A. Sowbhagya, GDS BPM, Chintarajupalle BO, a/w Mantapam Palle SO, Kadapa Division to APHB Colony BO. In the said O.A. No. 929 of 2016, the Tribunal on 02.09.2016, passed an interim order, directing the respondent to maintain status quo in respect of the order dated 23.08.2016. Pending the Original Application, Smt. A. Sowbhagya made a representation, requesting for her transfer as GDS BPM, Nennuru BO and the same came to be approved by the authorities. On 14.02.2019, the respondent herein made a representation to the petitioners to consider his request for APHB BO at Tirupathi. By way of the order impugned in O.A. No. 769 of 2019 dated 13.08.2019, request of the respondent herein came to be rejected by the authorities broadly on two grounds, viz., (i) the said request would run counter to the office memoranda dated 04.01.2019 and 15.07.2021 and (ii) that the respondent herein had undergone punishment. The Tribunal, vide the questioned order dated 16.11.2021, by way of a common order, allowed O.A. Nos. The Tribunal, vide the questioned order dated 16.11.2021, by way of a common order, allowed O.A. Nos. 929 of 2016 and 769 of 2019 and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:- 'Hence, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents are directed to consider the transfer of the applicant to APHB Colony BO by taking an undertaking from the applicant that he would accept the pay and allowances attached to the said post and that his future pay and allowances would be regulated accordingly as per rules and law. The time period allowed to implement the judgment is 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. Till such time, the interim order granted earlier shall continue.' 3. In the above background, the respondents in the aforesaid Original Application, have come up before this Court by way of the present Writ Petition. 4. According to the learned Assistant Solicitor General, the orders impugned in the present Writ Petition are highly erroneous, contrary to law and not in consonance with the official memoranda dated 04.01.2017 and 15.07.2021. It is the further submission of learned Assistant Solicitor General that the Tribunal did not properly take into consideration various objections raised by the authorities in the counter affidavit filed before the Tribunal including the variation in the level of the posts. 5. On the contrary, strenuously resisting the Writ Petition, it is contended by Sri T. Balaji, learned counsel for the respondent, that there is no error nor there exists any infirmity in the impugned order and in the absence of the same, the questioned order is not amenable for any judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that having regard to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and in the absence of any jurisdictional error, the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible. 6. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that having regard to the reasons assigned by the Tribunal and in the absence of any jurisdictional error, the invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is impermissible. 6. A perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, which is impugned in the present Writ Petition, in clear and unequivocal terms, discloses that the Tribunal after meticulously and extensively considering various issues, including the benefit extended to Smt. A. Sowbhagya and the non-consideration of the request of the respondent at relevant point of time and the request of the respondent made initially in the year 2012 when the earlier official memoranda were in force and keeping in view the medical condition of the respondent and the request eventually made by the respondent herein in the representation dated 02.08.2019, passed the order under challenge, directing the authorities to consider the request of the applicant for posting at APHB Colony BO by obtaining an undertaking that the respondent herein would accept the pay and allowances attached to the said post. It is a settled and well-established principle of law that the invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a writ, in the nature of writ of certiorari, is permissible only when the order/action impugned suffers from jurisdictional error, patent perversity and passed/taken in violation of the principles of natural justice. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said contingencies are conspicuously absent in the order impugned in the Writ Petition. The Tribunal, by taking into account the circumstances of the case, passed the order under challenge. In view of the above reasons, the order passed by the Tribunal, by any stretch of imagination, cannot be faulted. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the order passed by the Tribunal shall not be taken as a precedent, as the same came to be passed by the Tribunal, in the circumstances of the case on hand. There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition. As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.