COMMON ORDER : SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J. Since the issues involved in all the writ petitions are interconnected, they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, PR (PA to SE, PR) Circle Office, Ongole filed the above writ petition 21558 of 2024 impugning the proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Procs.No.Ser- III/Transfers-Dy.E.Es/2024-44, dated 20.09.2024 transferring the petitioner from Ongole to Chirala as illegal and arbitrary. 3. W.P.No.25482 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of respondents 3 and 4 in obstructing the petitioner from discharging his duties as Deputy Executive Engineer, SE PR Circle, Ongole, despite the impugned transfer order dated 20.09.2024 issued by the third respondent being suspended by this Court, illegal and arbitrary. 4. W.P.No.30689 of 2024 is filed to declare the action of the 4 th respondent in not paying the salary to the petitioner, even though the petitioner is being continued in service as Deputy Executive Engineer in the office of 4 th respondent in terms of the interim order passed in W.P.No.21558 of 2024 dated 27.09.2024, as illegal and arbitrary. 5. Averments in the affidavit, in brief, are that the petitioner while working as Deputy Executive Engineer at Kondepi, was transferred to PR to SE Circle, Ongole on 30.06.2022 and since then has been discharging duties. The 1 st respondent issued G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 prescribing the guidelines for transfers and postings of employees lifting the ban on transfers. The petitioner made a representation dated 26.08.2024 seeking retention because his wife is working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Office of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole. However, without considering the same, the transfer order, impugned in the writ petition, was issued. The transfer order does not contain any reason. To accommodate the 5 th respondent, another Deputy Executive Engineer for extraneous reasons, the petitioner was transferred. Hence, the writ petition. 6. a) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of 3 rd respondent. It was contended, interalia, that earlier the Government vide Memo No.1385171/2021-Estt-1, dated 03.04.2021 of PR & RD, (Estt-1) Department have informed that the Collector & District Magistrate, Prakasam District surrendered the petitioner, Deputy Executive Engineer, PRI Sub Division, Kondepi to PR Department. As per the Procgs.No.Vig.III(1)/360/2021 dated 03.05.2021, the petitioner was directed to work on Other Duty basis at the office of Superintending Engineer, PR, Ongole on administrative grounds. As per the Procgs.No.Vig.III(1)/360/2021 dated 03.05.2021, the petitioner was directed to work on Other Duty basis at the office of Superintending Engineer, PR, Ongole on administrative grounds. Thereafter during the transfers in the year 2022, the petitioner was transferred and posted to the office of SE, PR, Prakasam on administrative grounds. b) A complaint, made by one S.K.Rahul, an anti-corruption Social Worker of Santhapeta of Ongole, was received from the Government on 04.09.2024 against the petitioner that he had been harassing women employees with vulgar language and requested to take immediate action. As per the directions of the Government, the petitioner was transferred and posted at PIU Sub Division, Chirala on administrative grounds. 7. A reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner. It was contended that one S.K.Rahul sent an e-mail to the Chief Minister’s Office and others by attaching the paper clippings. The Principal Secretary to the Panchayat Raj Department forwarded the e-mail to the 3 rd respondent. Earlier, based on an anonymous complaint, the 3 rd respondent directed the 4 th respondent to conduct a detailed enquiry and furnish a report. As per the directions of Superintendent of Police, Ongole, the police examined 8 women employees with the permission of 4 th respondent on 01.07.2023 and all the women employees informed the police that they were not subjected to harassment. The 4 th respondent submitted a report dated 05.07.2023. Based on the said report, the 3 rd respondent issued Memo No.Lr.No.Vig.III(1)/4070/2023, dated 24.02.2024 and opined that no action is required in the matter. Thereafter, the complaint was made by S.K.Rahul, and eventually prayed to set aside the transfer proceedings. 8. Heard Sri P.Nagendra Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri R.S.Manidhar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services for respondents. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is punitive as seen from the averments in the counter affidavit and hence, the proceedings are liable to be set aside. He would point out concerning the earlier anonymous complaint, enquiry conducted and the 4 th respondent submitted a report to the 3 rd respondent vide Lr.No.A4/183/2023, dated 05.07.2023 (Ex.P3 filed along with reply) and based on the said report, the 3 rd respondent opined that no action is required. He would point out concerning the earlier anonymous complaint, enquiry conducted and the 4 th respondent submitted a report to the 3 rd respondent vide Lr.No.A4/183/2023, dated 05.07.2023 (Ex.P3 filed along with reply) and based on the said report, the 3 rd respondent opined that no action is required. He would also submit that the petitioner’s wife is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the office of the Executive Engineer, PRI Division, Ongole and without considering all these aspects, the petitioner was transferred. 10. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services, on the other hand, would submit that as per the directions of the Government, the petitioner was transferred. The petitioner involved unfair practices. He would also submit that the 5 th respondent took charge on 26.09.2024 and the petitioner did not join at the transferee place. 11. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the transfer proceedings, impugned (Ex.P1), are legally sustainable? 12. As seen from the pleadings and material available on records, there is no dispute that the petitioner was transferred to Ongole vide Procs.No.Ser-III/Transfers-Dy.E.Es/2022, dated 30.06.2022 (Ex.P3). Further as seen from the material papers filed along with the reply affidavit, based on the anonymous complaint, when the petitioner misbehaved and made sexual harassment with women employees, the police enquired and recorded their statements. The 4 th respondent submitted a report dated 05.07.2023 (Ex.P3) to the 3 rd respondent. In the said report, it was observed as follows: “I submit that the complainant has not furnished specific addressor mobile number to address a communication for verification and preliminary examination of the petition made by two women namely Bharathi and Pallavi. Normally, allegations of anonymous petition ought not to be taken notice and accordingly, it is hereby ordered in Circular Memo 706/Spl.B3/99-3, dated 28.10.1999 of General Administration Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, that no action should at all be taken on any anonymous or pseudonymous petitions or complaints received against the cadre and non-cadre officers of the State Government and they must be just filed. I, therefore, submit that the anonymous or pseudonymous petitions or complaints demoralize public servants and as such should be ignored and only filed. Moreover, there is no proof and evidence produced by the petitioners against Sri T.Tirupathi Rao on sexual harassment against women. All the allegations are fabricated and concocted.” 13. I, therefore, submit that the anonymous or pseudonymous petitions or complaints demoralize public servants and as such should be ignored and only filed. Moreover, there is no proof and evidence produced by the petitioners against Sri T.Tirupathi Rao on sexual harassment against women. All the allegations are fabricated and concocted.” 13. Acting upon the said report, the 3 rd respondent issued Memo No.Lr.No.Vig.III(1)/4070/2023, dated 24.02.2024 and decided not to take any action. Thus, by March 2024, the 3 rd respondent closed the complaint against the petitioner. 14. G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024, prescribes guidelines regarding transfers and postings of employees. Paragraph No.4 of the G.O. speaks about the principles for transfers and postings. It delineates that the employees who have completed 5 years of stay at a station be transferred invariably. Employees other than those who have completed 5 years of stay are also eligible for transfer on personal requests. 15. Case at hand, the transfer proceedings (Ex.P1) do not indicate that the petitioner's transfer is punitive. The proceedings disclosed that the petitioner was transferred from one place to another place with immediate effect. 16. In cases of transfer, the interference by the Court is very limited unless the transfer is vitiated or suffers from arbitrariness or malafides. Normally, the courts will not interfere with transfers. An employee cannot claim absolute immunity from transfer when the post he/she occupies is transferable. For that matter, the executive instructions or administrative directions do not confer any indefeasible right to claim transfer or posting in favor of the employee. By transfer, an employee's service conditions will not be changed except for the place of work. In N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (1994) 6 SCC 98 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that transfer which is an incidence of service is not to be interfered with by courts unless it is shown to be arbitrary or vitiated by malafides or infraction of any professed norms or principles governing the transfer. 17. The above principle was reiterated in Abani Kanta Ray Vs. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P , (2007) 8 SCC 150 . 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others , [2024 0 Supreme (SC) 225] , observed thus: “10. State of Orissa and others, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 169 and Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P , (2007) 8 SCC 150 . 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Pubi Lombi Vs. The State of Arunachal Pradesh and Others , [2024 0 Supreme (SC) 225] , observed thus: “10. In view of the foregoing enunciation of law by judicial decisions of this Court, it is clear that in absence of (i) pleadings regarding mala-fide, (ii) non-joining the person against whom allegations are made, (iii) violation of any statutory provision (iv) the allegation of the transfer being detrimental to the employee who is holding a transferable post, judicial interference is not warranted. In the sequel of the said settled norms, the scope of judicial review is not permissible by the Courts in exercising of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India .” 19. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the transfer of the petitioner, as seen from the proceedings impugned, was made on administrative grounds. This Court does not find any malice in the transfer. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in this regard, is meritless and falls to the ground. 20. The other contention of the learned counsel is that the guidelines issued vide G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 have a statutory force is merit consideration. This court in W.P.No.20524 of 2024 dated 24.12.2024 holds that the guidelines have statutory force. This Court by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Paluru Ramakrishnaiah Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 166 ; Nagpur Improvement Trust Vs. Yadaorao Jagannath Kumbhare, (1999) 8 SCC 99 ; North West Railway Vs. Chanda Devi, (2008) 2 SCC 108 and Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Rabindranath Choubey, (2020) 18 SCC 71 eventually concluded that guidelines in G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 issued in exercise of the executive Power of State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India , have statutory force. 21. The Full Bench of the Karnataka High Court in Mr.Chandru H.N. Vs. State of Karnataka and others (supra-1), while answering a reference, where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to a transfer of Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutory force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. State of Karnataka and others (supra-1), while answering a reference, where the guidelines of the Government Order No.DPAR 4 STR 2001, Bangalore, dated 22.11.2001 relating to a transfer of Government servants, which has come into force from 22.11.2001 have any statutory force or not, answered the reference in affirmative. The Full Bench held that in the absence of any rules providing for regulating the transfer and providing guidelines therein, the executive order issued in the exercise of power under Article 162 of the Constitution of India will have statutory force and can be enforced, as the extent of executive power of the State to make laws is subject to the provisions of the Constitution and the executive power of the State shall extend to the matters in respect to which legislature has power to make laws. 22. In the light of the above pronouncements, this Court is of the considered opinion that G.O.Ms.No.75 dated 17.08.2024 framing guidelines for transfers and postings of employees have statutory force. However, those guidelines will not give any indefeasible right to any employee to claim transfer or posting. 23. Though the guidelines have statutory force, that itself will vitiate the transfer of the petitioner. As discussed supra, the petitioner cannot claim immunity, since the transfer was made on administrative grounds. 24. Regarding other contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the transfer is bad in law since his wife is working at Nellore, the answer to the said point is no longer res integra. 25. In Bank of India Vs. Jagjit Singh Mehta , (1992) 1 SCC 306 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: “5. There can be no doubt that ordinarily and as far as practicable the husband and wife who are both employed should be posted at the same station even if their employers be different. The desirability of such a course is obvious. However, this does not mean that their place of posting should invariably be one of their choice, even though their preference may be taken into account while making the decision in accordance with the administrative needs. … …. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible …” 26. In Union of India Vs. … …. No doubt the guidelines require the two spouses to be posted at one place as far as practicable, but that does not enable any spouse to claim such a posting as of right if the departmental authorities do not consider it feasible …” 26. In Union of India Vs. S.L. Abbas , (1993) 4 SCC 357 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus: 7. Who should be transferred where, is a matter for the appropriate authority to decide. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is made in violation of any statutory provisions, the court cannot interfere with it. While ordering the transfer, there is no doubt, the authority must keep in mind the guidelines issued by the Government on the subject. Similarly if a person makes any representation with respect to his transfer, the appropriate authority must consider the same having regard to the exigencies of administration. The guidelines say that as far as possible, husband and wife must be posted at the same place. The said guideline however does not confer upon the Government employee a legally enforceable right. 27. In this case, an interim order was granted on 27.09.2024. Before passing the interim order, the other employee joined the post on 26.09.2024. When the interim order was granted, it was not brought to the notice of this Court that the other incumbent already joined the office and started discharging duties. Once the petitioner was relieved and the other incumbent joined duty, the petitioner should have reported and joined in the transferee place. Mere reporting to the transferee place will not take away the right of the petitioner to challenge the transfer order. In such circumstances, the petitioner can neither challenge disallowing him from discharging duties and non-payment of salary. 28. The Hon’ble Apex Court in The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. Vs R.Agila, Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).13070-13075/2022 dated 20.08.2024. , observed thus: 2. The instant matter is a typical case in an array of service law litigation where an employee gets transferred by the administrative authorities to another place, however instead of joining the new place of posting, they challenge the said order of transfer while also demanding the salary for the period they remained in unauthorised absence. , observed thus: 2. The instant matter is a typical case in an array of service law litigation where an employee gets transferred by the administrative authorities to another place, however instead of joining the new place of posting, they challenge the said order of transfer while also demanding the salary for the period they remained in unauthorised absence. At the outset, we deem it important to highlight that our chief condemnation in such matters is not to the said challenge to transfer orders, rather the act of refusing to join the new place of posting while the legal or administrative battle is underway. 3. It is established as a part of service law jurisprudence that transfer is an exigency of service. As such, when a person becomes an employee of the Government, the incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred under certain provisions governing conditions of service. 4. Under such terms and conditions of service, an employee has no right to remain absent or refuse to join the new place of transfer once relieved from their current place of posting. The employee is entitled to avail all available remedies for redressal of grievances, but it does not entitle them to not comply with the transfer orders. The employee is well within his rights to join the transferred place of posting and still continue to avail the remedies available under the law for redressal of his grievances against the transfer. 29. In the case at hand, as discussed supra, the transfer of the petitioner was effected on administrative grounds. The petitioner cannot claim that the transfer is vitiated since his wife’s employment has no merit, given the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jagjit Singh Mehta (supra-9) and S.L.Abbas (supra-10). The petitioner discharges the same duties even in the transferred place. The transfer being the incidence of service, and the transfer of the petitioner was made on administrative grounds, keeping in view, the scope of interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , this Court in its considered opinion holds that the order does not suffer from any illegality. 30. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any illegality in the transfer proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Procs.No.Ser-III/Transfers-Dy.E.Es/2024-44, dated 20.09.2024. Hence, the W.P.No.21558 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed. 31. 30. Given the discussion supra, this Court does not find any illegality in the transfer proceedings issued by the 3 rd respondent vide Procs.No.Ser-III/Transfers-Dy.E.Es/2024-44, dated 20.09.2024. Hence, the W.P.No.21558 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed. 31. Accordingly, the W.P.No.21558 of 2024 is Dismissed . Since the W.P.No.21558 of 2024 is Dismissed, the other two W.P.Nos.25482 and 30689 of 2024, the relief being consequential, are also Dismissed . No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.