THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY +W.P.No.16621 of 2008 % 26-08-2008 Between: P.S. Reddy and others …Petitioners And A.P.S.R.T.C. rep.by its Vice Chairman & Managing Director and others …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioners : Sri G. Vidyasagar ^ Counsel for Respondents : Smt. B.G. Uma Devi < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.16621 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioners herein are working as Drivers in the Siddipet Depot of A.P.S.R.T.C. They have been posted to that Depot, in the recent past. Through the impugned order, dated 21-07-2008, the Regional Manager, Mediak, at Sanga Reddy, the 2nd respondent herein, transferred them to various places, including Zaheerabad, and Narayankhed, within the same region. They feel aggrieved by the said transfer. Petitioners contend that the 2nd respondent had transferred them to far oﬀ places, even while retaining the long standing Drivers, at Siddipet, and accommodating the requests of Drivers, from other places, for being posted at Siddipet. Respondents filed counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the necessity to transfer the petitioners arose, on account of their making over certain services and routes from Siddipet to Dubbak Depot. It is also stated that, some of the employees have made requests for transferring them to Siddipet, and the junior-most employees, in the cadre of Drivers, have been transferred to other places. Heard Sri G. Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioners, and B.G. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is the prerogative of an employer, to transfer its employees to the needy places. However, the transfers must, not only be transparent, but also must be on objective criteria. In a vast organization like, the A.P.S.R.T.C., a uniform policy has to be adopted, so that the scope of arbitrariness, in transfers, is less. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are juniors in the Siddipet Depot. The standing of an employee, at a particular place, serves virtually opposite purposes, in the context of transfer, on the one hand, and retrenchment, on the other hand. While an employee with long stay is liable to be transferred, the one, with less standing is liable to be retrenched. In the instant case, substantial number of drivers became surplus, on account of making over of Bus services, from Siddipet to Dubbak Depot. Though, not in strict terms, in a way, it can be said that the junior-most employees faced a situation, similar to retrenchment. At the same time, they have to be accommodated, at the places to which, the services have been transferred or made over. Such is not the case here. As a consequence of making over the services of another Depot, the petitioners became surplus, whereas some chosen persons were sent to the depot, to which the services were made over. The petitioners were sent to depots, to which no buses or routes were transferred from Siddipet. Another aspect of the matter is that, some of the petitioners were rendered surplus, in the process of accommodating the requests of employees, working at other places. This is impermissible. No employee can be shifted from an existing station for the exclusive purpose of accommodating the request of another. Therefore, the impugned order, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, is set aside, with the following directions, viz., a) The drivers, who were rendered surplus, on account of making over the services from Siddipet to Dubbak Depot, shall be given option to be transferred to the Dubbak Depot itself, and only such drivers, who do not exercise such option, shall be liable to be posted anywhere in the region. b) No driver shall be rendered surplus, or shifted, for the exclusive purpose of accommodating the request of another, for being transferred to Siddipet Depot. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.26-08-2008. Note: L.R copy to be marked. KO