IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 717 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 30/10/2007 in WP NO : 2690 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Shaik Mohammed Hayath, S/o. S. Mohammed Yousuf, Training Section, O/o CGM BSNL Abids, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 General Manager, Telecome BSNL, Cuddapah, Cuddapah District. 2 Chief General Manager, Telecom BSNL, A.P. Circle, Doorsanchar Bhavan, Abids, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: PARTY-IN-PERSON Counsel for the Respondents: MR.B. DEVADAS (SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 717 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meenakumari). The writ appeal is filed against order dated 30-10-2007 passed in WP.No. 2690 of 2005 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the request of the writ petitioner for transfer to Pulivendla was not considered by the respondents favourably is no ground for him to seek compensation particularly on the ground that he had lost incentives by virtue of his not posting at Pulivendla nor can he seek any direction to the respondents to take action against the officials, who failed to consider his case for transfer. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering his representation dated 01-6-2004 as illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice and consequently to direct the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000-00 for overlooking his case, as he is loosing an amount of Rs.10,000/- per month for tenure along with mental agony and to pass such other suitable orders. 3. The appellant-writ petitioner is working as SSO (T) in Telegraph Office, BSNL at Proddatur. The appellant states that Pulivendla Telecom Centre is potential business center where the person posted earns lot of incentive. His grievance is that though he made representation in May 1997 seeking to transfer him to Jammalamadugu or Pulivendla or Yerraguntla. When the respondents have not taken any action, again he made another representation on 07-6-2004 seeking to transfer him to Pulivendla Telecom Centre, pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- as he is losing nearly Rs.10,000/- per month by way of incentives and also initiate disciplinary action against the concerned officials for ignoring his transfer. As the respondents did not take any action on his representation, he filed the above writ petition. 4. On the other hand, in the counter-affidavit filed by the learned standing counsel for the respondents, it is an admitted fact that the writ petitioner has submitted representation in May 1997 for his transfer to Jammalamadugu or Pulivendla or Yerraguntla but as there was no candidate willing to go to the place where the writ petitioner is working, therefore, his request was not considered. The writ petitioner states that in every center business incentives are paid to the employees, and at any rate, they are not guaranteed and the writ petitioner cannot seek that he should be transferred to a place of his choice and it is the prerogative of the employer to post its employees at the place where their services are required. When his request for transfer to Pulivendla was not considered, he cannot claim any compensation, much less Rs.4,00,000/- on the ground that he lost Rs.10,000/- per month and prayed to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Having heard the appellant-writ petitioner as well as the learned standing counsel for the respondents, the learned single Judge dismissed the main writ petition on the ground that the request of the writ petitioner for transfer to Pulivendla was not considered by the respondents favourably is no ground for him to seek compensation particularly on the ground that he had lost incentives by virtue of his not posting at Pulivendla nor can he seek any direction to the respondents to take action against the officials, who failed to consider his case for transfer. Questioning the order dated 30-10-2007 passed in WP.No. 2690 of 2005 by the learned single Judge, the present writ appeal is filed. 6. Heard the party-in-person as well as Sri T. Sreedhar, representing Sri B.Devanand, the learned standing counsel for the respondents. 7. The party-in-person across the bar argued that he is working at Proddatur for the last eleven years and he made representation in May 1997 requesting the respondents to transfer him to Jammalamadugu or Pulivendula or Yerraguntla. Thereafter, he also made another representation on 07-6-2004 seeking to transfer him to Pulivendla Telecom Centre, as he is losing incentive @ Rs.10,000/- per month, which are after working hours. 8. Having heard the party-in-person and in view of the fact that even though the appellant has made representation to the respondents seeking to transfer him to Pulivendula, it is not as a matter of fact to claim and select the place of his choice and also more so on the ground that he will get incentive @ Rs.10,000/- per month and also he cannot claim compensation of Rs.4 lakhs on the ground that his application has not been considered by the respondents. In our considered opinion, no exception can be taken to the action of the respondents in rejecting his representation dated 07-6-2004 seeking to transfer him to Pulivendula or any other place of his choice. The appellant cannot claim transfer as matter of right and it is the prerogative of the employer to post its employees at the place where their services are required. 9. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that transfer is an incidence of service and except in cases of proven malafides this court seldom interferes with such transfers, lest the entire administration will be paralysed and in the context of fact that the appellant-writ petitioner has been working in the Telegraph Office of BSNL Proddatur as SSO (T) for eleven years, he cannot seek transfer to a place of his choice on the ground that he is loosing incentive @ Rs.10,000/- per month and that not considering his representation cannot be a ground to seek compensation, muchless compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- and more so that he had lost incentives by virtue of his not posting at Pulivendula. For the aforementioned reasons, while exercising the jurisdiction under clause 15 of Letters Patent, we are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 08-6-2009. I s L