THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No.22213 OF 2010 BETWEEN: Vallam Reddy Venkata Ramana Reddy. ….PETITIONER(S) AND General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Karimnagar and others. ….RESPONDENT(S) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR W.P.No.22213 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Honourable Sri Justice N.Ravi Shankar) The point which arises for determination in this writ petition is whether Lr.No.E-1-192/Sr TQAs/Trfrs/09-10/III/ 12, dated at KAA the 09.06.2010 transferring the petitioner from the office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Karimnagar, to Sircilla, is valid or not. 2. Questioning the above transfer order, the petitioner filed O.A.No.571 of 2010 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The said Tribunal by its order dated 11.08.2010 held that the impugned transfer order is valid and dismissed the said O.A. Assailing the said order of the Tribunal the petitioner filed the present writ petition. 3. The matter pertains to the Telephones Department i.e., Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short BSNL) and its policy regarding transfers of its staff. The case of the petitioner is that there are four different categories of Senior Telephone Operative Assistants (SrTOA) and the said categories are SrTOA (General), SrTOA (Phones), SrTOA (Telegraphy) and SrTOA (Telegraphy General) in the BSNL and he belongs to the category of SrTOA (General). His further plea is that all the four categories are different and their nature of work is also different and there is no provision for transferring personnel from one category to another and his transfer is illegal or not permissible because of that reason. 4. The petitioner says that for the purpose of transfers, the management of BSNL clubbed all four categories for effecting transfers and that before the transfer order, he was working as Senior Section Officer in the office of the 1st respondent which is a supervisory post and there is no such post at Sircilla and consequently the transfer order is void on that ground also. He then stated that the impugned transfer order was issued on the basis of the policy contained in BSNL Corporate letter dated 14.10.2008 said to have been circulated by the 1st respondent but the same was withdrawn by the management of the BSNL i.e., through its Chief General Manager on 24.09.2009 and therefore, the impugned order is bad on that ground also. The petitioner filed a copy of the letter dated 24.09.2009 referred to by him in the material papers. It shows that the earlier BSNL Corporate letter dated 14.10.2008 is withdrawn. 5. The Assistant General Manager (Legal) of the 2nd respondent’s office filed counter on his behalf and also the other respondents. Their first plea is that by the impugned transfer order the petitioner’s seniority or his emoluments are not affected and that he would continue to draw same salary and will have all the benefits of seniority and emoluments and any increase in the same are protected. They then pleaded that the plea of the petitioner that the nature of the work of the four categories of SrTOAs is different is not correct and that all of them perform the same duties. They also pleaded that there are no supervisory posts in the new transfer policy and all the SrTOAs have to perform the duties assigned to them. They pleaded that the petitioner also gave his option to join in the new non-executive promotion policy by his option dated 20.10.2010. The substance of the counter is that BSNL has framed a scheme to utilize all SrTOAs to meet the manpower requirement wherever it is necessary and with that object they framed the new non-executive promotion policy which ensures protection of seniority and emoluments and also promotion chances. Regarding the transfers they pleaded that a combined seniority list of SrTOAs belonging to all four categories has been prepared as per the transfer guidelines and the criteria for transfers was the longest stay in a station and as the petitioner was found to have stayed at Karimnagar for a long period he was shifted and this policy was followed uniformly without any discrimination and therefore the petitioner cannot have any grievance. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents addressed the arguments on the point basing on their pleadings which are mentioned supra. 7. Now coming to the point the stand of the respondents would show that by reason of the transfer of the petitioner his seniority or emoluments are not affected. The only grievance of the petitioner is that prior to the transfer he was working as a Senior Section Supervisor which is a supervisory job and he has been transferred to a non-supervisory job. It is not his case that the post of Senior Section Supervisor is a promotion post and he has not been able show any rules to conclude that it is a promotion post and that his transfer to Sircilla would amount to demotion. His substantive post admittedly is SrTOA. It is also found in the counter that depending upon the job requirement of a post to which a person is posted the BSNL management would also provide necessary training. 8. A perusal of the impugned transfer order dated 09.06.2010 would show that the said transfer order is passed in accordance with the new BSNL employee transfer policy No.3-1/2002- Restrg.P(II) dated 05.09.2007 and amended BSNLs employee transfer policy No.6-1/2007-Restrg dated 07.05.2008 circulated vide GOMT HD Lr.No.TA/STB/BSNL Trf.Policy/NE/2007 dated 13.05.2008. There is no reference in the transfer order about the BSNL Corporate letter dated 14.10.2008. It may be noted here that earlier the BSNL issued instructions dated 18.11.2003 [No.27- 8/2003-TE-II(ii)] expressly stating that henceforth only one cadre of SrTOA (G) will be maintained and the officials of this cadre will be utilized to perform any of the duties of SrTOA as per the requirement for which, if necessary, suitable training will be imparted to these officials and the other cadres of SrTOAs are declared as wasting cadres. It is not necessary to discuss as to what are these wasting cadres. 9. It is the version of the respondents that under the transfer policy the question of distinction between supervisory posts and the distinction between the duties of various posts has been abolished and a junior or senior have to perform the same job with protection of pay and seniority. This is called non-executive promotion policy. It should also be noted that the respondents have also filed a copy of the option form dated 20.10.2010 and it shows that the petitioner opted to come into the non-executive promotion policy and this is not disputed. It is true that this option form dated 20.10.2010 is subsequent to the impugned transfer order which is dated 09.06.2010 but nevertheless it is binding on the petitioner and therefore he cannot now complain about his transfer especially when the transfer did not bring about any adverse affect on his seniority and emoluments. The Assistant General Manager concerned in his letter dated 08.10.2009 addressed to the second respondent clarified that the criteria for transfer of non-executives should be the computation of longest stay for all streams of SrTOAs taken together and necessary action may be taken in the light of transfer policy issued by the BSNL vide No.6-1/2007-Restrg dated 07.05.2008 and subsequent letter of even number dated 13.08.2008. It is brought to our notice that having considered the petitioner’s stay at Karimnagar to be longest he has been transferred to Sircilla and that no discrimination has been made. In such a situation it is now well settled that an employee cannot complain of any discrimination and he has to go wherever he is posted unless the transfer is the result of any mala fides or results in any reduction of pay or reduction in seniority. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents have acted with mala fides in transferring him or the transfer has resulted in any reduction of pay or seniority. The respondents have stated categorically that the petitioner continues to enjoy his seniority and pay protection and increments or emoluments therein. The Tribunal in its order considered the above circumstances and held against the petitioner. 10. We have gone through the Tribunal’s order and we find no illegality or infirmity to interfere with the same. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. All interim orders granted earlier shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. _______________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J. 23-03-2011 INL/CVRK