JUDGMENT : SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Aravind Kumar Kata, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “.....to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: (a) By declaring the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the respondents 1 & 2 in issuing the present Impugned Memo No.Estt/B4/299/2023 dated; 27-5-2023 of the 1 st respondent and consequential Proc No. CPCH/E2/7729-35/2023 dated; 2-6-2023 of the 2 nd respondent wherein attached the services of the petitioner to the 3 rd respondent office by simply mentioning on administrative grounds even without assigning any such reasons, during the ban on transfers is as highly illegal, arbitrary, unjust, improper, colorable exercise of power, vindictive attitude and nothing but stigma/punitive in nature and contrary to various judicial pronouncements in the subject matter and set aside or quash the impugned proceedings. (b) and consequently to direct the respondents to continue and retain the services of the petitioner as Warder in the O/o. 2 nd respondent without reference to the present Impugned Memo No. Estt /B4/299/2023 dated; 27-5-2023 of the 1 st respondent and consequential Proc No. CPCH/E2/7729-35/2023 dated; 2-6-2023 of the 2 nd respondent, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Jail Warder on 06.03.2012 and posted at Central Prison, Rajahmundry. After the bifurcation of the State, the petitioner was transferred to the office of respondent No.2 in February 2014. Respondent No. 1 issued a memo dated 27.05.2023 to the petitioner, transferring him to Central Prison, Sangareddy, and respondent No.2 issued a consequential order dated 02.06.2023 directing the petitioner to report to respondent No.3 without any justification. The memo merely references the minutes of the establishment committee dated 25.05.2023 but fails to explain why the petitioner’s transfer is necessary or justified. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. The memo merely references the minutes of the establishment committee dated 25.05.2023 but fails to explain why the petitioner’s transfer is necessary or justified. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 4. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the proceedings vide Memo No. Estt/ E4/ 299/ 2023, dated 27.05.2022 issued by the respondent No.1-The Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services, Chenchalguda, to the petitioner is extracted hereunder “Sri. B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Warder Central Prison, Cherlapally is attached in Central Prison Sangareddy on Administrative Grounds. 2) The Superintendent Central Prison, Cherlapalli requested to relieve the above individual with a direction to report before the Superintendent Central Prison, Sangareddy. 3) The duties of relief and joining of the above individual should be reported to this office in due course.” B) The relevant portion of the proceedings vide Proc. No.CPCh/ F2/ 7729-35/ 2023, dated 02.06.2023 issued by the respondent No.2-The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapally to the petitioner is extracted hereunder “In pursuance of Head Office orders issued in the reference cited Sri. B. Ravi Kumar Reddy, Warder Central Prison, Cherlapally who is under orders of attachment to Central Prison Sangreddy on Administrative Grounds is relieved of his duties at this Institution on the Afternoon of 02-06-2023 with a directing to report before the Superintendent Central/Prison Sangareddy immediately. The Superintendent Central Prison Sangareddy is requested to inform the date of joining of the above Warder at Central Prison Sangareddy to the Head Office under intimation to this institution.” C) The Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, in particular, paragraph No.4 is extracted hereunder “ 4. In reply to Para Nos. 8 & 9 of the affidavit, it is submitted that, the petitioner herein was not transferred to Central Prison, Sangareddy but rather, he was temporarily attached to Central Prison, Sangareddy, for administrative convenience and not as a punishment, which is not against the principle of natural justice, not improper, not against the rules and not illegal. It is only as part of maintaining smooth and effective running of the administration. It is further submitted that, the petitioner herein is not transferred but only temporarily attached to Central Prison, Sangareddy, while his pay and allowance will continue to be drawn and paid as usual at Central Prison, Cherlapalli, with no financial loss to him or his family. It is only as part of maintaining smooth and effective running of the administration. It is further submitted that, the petitioner herein is not transferred but only temporarily attached to Central Prison, Sangareddy, while his pay and allowance will continue to be drawn and paid as usual at Central Prison, Cherlapalli, with no financial loss to him or his family. It is further submitted that, even though the petitioner was issued attachment orders to Central Prison, Sangareddy vide Order No. Estt/E4/299/2023, Dt: 27.05.2023 of the O/o. the Director General of Prisons & Correctional Services, Telangana State, Hyderabad and consequential Procs. No. CPCh/E2/7729-35/2023, Dt: 02.06.2023 of the O/o, the Superintendent, Central Prison, Cherlapalli, on administrative grounds, he has not received the said order and not reported to duty so far since 02.06.2023. The orders are posted to his house. He has been unauthorized absent from duty since 02.06.2023 without the prior permission of the higher officials thereby causing much inconvenience to the administration”. D) The relevant paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of petitioner to the counter field on behalf of the respondents are extracted hereunder “ 4. . It is further submitted that, the main contention of the respondent authorities that, the authority who passed above orders is having power for affect transfer and posting, and further stated that, I was temporarily attached to central prison, Sangareddy, for administrative convenience and not as a punishment and further stated that, additional guarding staff are required to the institution form security and administration point of view. In this regard it is relevant to submit that, (07) Head Warders and (8) Warders of Sangareddy Central Jail were sent to work on attachment basis to work in other jails by entertaining the request of the individuals. In those circumstances, the respondent authorities, instead of disturbing my services from Central jail Charlapally, the respondent authorities can call back said individuals who were working an attachment basis in other jails. Having accommodating the Regular Warders of Sangareddy Central Jail to work in other jails on attachment basis by entertaining their representations, disbursing my services, including my family members is certainly bad in law, opposed to all principles of natural justice. 5. It is further submitted that, the power vested with the authority has to exercise, honestly, bonafiedly, reasonably with public interest. 5. It is further submitted that, the power vested with the authority has to exercise, honestly, bonafiedly, reasonably with public interest. In this case on hand, the respondents while issuing the present impugned orders dted;27-5-2022 and 2-6- 2023, not exercised their power honestly, bonafiedly, reasonably. Therefore, same is malafied in nature and malice in law. Therefore, the present W.P. is liable to be allowed as paid for in the interest of justice.” DISCUSSION AND CONLCUSION:- 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner, vide detailed representation dated 28.01.2025, informed Respondent No.1 that he had been working as a Warden since 2014 at Central Prison, Cherlapalli, and on 02.06.2023, petitioner was transferred to Central Prison, Sangareddy on attachment. The petitioner further mentioned in the said representation that he has a 69-year- old mother and is the only son responsible for her health and emotional support at this age and he also has responsibilities towards his wife and children. The petitioner further mentioned in the said representation that petitioner has been suffering financially, psychologically, and emotionally due to the daily commute from Cherlapalli to Sangareddy, and that the impugned order is explained in paragraph No.4 of the counter affidavit as a temporary attachment to Central Prison, Sangareddy for administrative convenience and not as a punishment. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the respondent No.1 has to necessarily consider the request of the petitioner made vide petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025 addressed to the respondent No.1 herein and pass appropriate orders allocating the petitioner to work at Central prison, Cherlapalli or to post the petitioner at Sub-Jail, Bhongir as stated at paragraph No.6 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in accordance to law as the respondent No.1 had accommodated individuals at Sangareddy Central Jail and other jails based on their requests, and therefore, the petitioner’s request also deserves similar consideration. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2025 in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 8. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the writ petition could be disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 28.01.2025 in accordance to law within a reasonable period. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner places reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 10.10.2001, passed in W.P. No.13344 of 2001 and the relevant portion of the said order is extracted hereunder: “This Court is, therefore, entitled to see as to whether the impugned order of transfer was by way of or in lieu of punishment, in the circumstances referred to hereinbefore.” 9. Basing on the above Division Bench Judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the transfer of the petitioner from Cherlapalli Central Jail to Sangareddy Central Jail is not a temporary attachment but, in fact, an order of punishment. Therefore, in the present case, the petitioner had been punished by virtue of the impugned order issued by Respondent No.1 dated 27.05.2023 and the consequential order issued by Respondent No.2 dated 02.06.2023, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for in the present writ petition. 10. This Court taking into consideration the Division Bench judgment, dated 10.10.2001 passed in W.P.o.13344 of 2001 and also the specific averments made in the affidavit and reply affidavit filed by the petitioner opines that the respondent No.1 is bound to consider the grievance of the petitioner as put-forth vide petitioner’s representation, dated 28.01.2025 addressed to the 1 st respondent, in accordance to law w ithin a reasonable period. 11. 11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION: a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services appearing on behalf of the respondents, c) The contents of the impugned order dated 27.05.2022 of the respondent No.1 and the consequential proceedings dated 02.06.2023 of the respondent No.2 issued to the petitioner herein (referred to and extracted above), d) The averments made at paragraph No.4 in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above), e) The averments made at paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner to the counter filed on behalf of the respondents (referred to and extracted above), f) The contents of the petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025, which admittedly had not been considered as on date, g) The specific plea of the petitioner that respondent No.1 considered similar requests as put-forth by the petitioner in the present case and accommodated individuals at Sangareddy Central Jail and other jails based on the said requests . The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.1 to consider the request of the petitioner made vide petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025 addressed to the respondent No.1 herein and pass appropriate orders pertaining to petitioner’s request regarding allocating the petitioner to work at PAC, Cherlapalli or to post the petitioner at Sub-Jail, Bhongir as stated at paragraph No.6 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner in accordance to law within a period of three(3) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on petitioner’s representation dated 28.01.2025 to the petitioner herein. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.