THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.16640 & 28267 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: The petitioner is working as Lineman in the Miryalaguda division of Central Power Distribution Company Limited, the 1st respondent herein. In the recent past, Huzurnagar was carved out of Miryalaguda division. Before the division, the strength of the Linemen in Miryalaguda division was 144. Huzurnagar division was allotted 33 posts of Linemen. Options were invited from the Linemen to be retained in Miryalaguda division, or to be transferred to Huzurnagar division. Almost all the persons, who are working in the stations, now, forming part of Huzurnagar, have given option to be allotted to Miryalaguda division. As against 33 posts, the petitioner figured at Item No.39 in the order, and almost at the bottom in the seniority list. Options were invited from the Linemen to be posted in Huzurnagar division. Many Linemen, who are seniors to the petitioner, have opted that division, and though the petitioner allotted to Huzurnagar division, his request could not be acceded to. As a result, he was transferred to a place in Miryalaguda division, through proceedings dated 21-05-2010. W.P.No.16640 of 2010 is filed, challenging the said proceedings. The petitioner did not join the place to which he was transferred, on the strength of the impugned order. However, his salary was not paid, obviously on account of the arrangements to be taken, as a result of bifurcation. W.P.No.28267 of 2010 is filed to declare the action of the respondents in not paying salary to the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit, opposing the writ petitions. It is stated that the options for allotment to Huzurnagar division were invited from all the Linemen and the request was acceded to, depending on the seniority. Heard Sri B. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.R.Balaram Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Whenever bifurcation takes place in a division or organization, the allotment of employees takes place, and that in turn needs exercise of option by the persons, who are working there, earlier. If more number of persons than required, can be accommodated, to exercise same option, the seniority becomes the relevant factor. The request made by a senior, deserves to be acceded to, compared to the one, made by a junior. In the instant case, 33 posts of Linemen were allotted to Huzurnagar division. However, more number of Linemen opted for allotment to that division. Naturally, senior-most among the applicants were allotted, and the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to. The petitioner is not able to point out any defect in the procedure adopted by the respondents, in allotting the Linemen. Hence, the W.P.No.16640 of 2010 is dismissed. However, the respondents shall not insist on the petitioner to join at the place, to which he is transferred, till December 31, 2010, to enable the petitioner to make necessary arrangements for shifting of the family, etc. So far as W.P.No.28267 of 2010 is concerned, the respondents cannot deny salary to the petitioner. He did not join the place, to which he was transferred, since there is an interim order in his favour. It has already been mentioned that the petitioner shall be entitled to work till 31-12-2010. The respondents, therefore, admit the petitioner to work at the same place, till 31-12-2010, and pay salary for the entire period, for which he attended the duties. W.P.No.28267 of 2010 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.16-11-2010. Note: c.c in one week. (B/O) KO