1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 25/07/2011 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.(MD) No.8065 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 M.Sathiyamoorthy ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukottai Region, rep. by its General Manager, Pudukkottai. 2.The Branch Manager, Pudukottai Town Branch of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the transfer order dated 02.07.2011 passed in Ref:TNSTC/Kumba/Papi1/045/11 by the first respondent, quash the same in so far as transferring the petitioner from Pudukkottai Branch to Aranthangi Branch of the 1st respondent Corporation and consequently direct the respondents to permit him to continue to work in his original place at the 2nd respondent branch and to treat the period from 14.07.2011 to the date of permitting him to join duty in his original place at the 2nd respondent branch as his duty period and to pay him all benefits including wages. For petitioner .. Mr.S.Arunachalam For respondents .. Mr.B.Pugalendhi, Special Government Pleader ORDER Inter alia, the impugned order of transfer, dated 02.07.2011, has been challenged on the ground that the petitioner had never given any mutual willingness or consent for transfer and therefore, the reason assigned is incorrect. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.On the above said ground, Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Special Government Pleader put on notice and directed to get instructions as to whether the impugned order of transfer has been made at the request of the Mr.S.Selvakumar and the writ petitioner, whose names have figured in the impugned order, dated 02.07.2011. On instructions, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that there was no mutual request and the order has been inadvertently made, stating that it was on mutual request. He further submitted that the impugned order, dated 02.07.2011, would be withdrawn and liberty may be given to issue a fresh order. 3.When the order is not made on the request of the petitioner, it is erroneous. The first respondent himself stated that he would withdraw the impugned order. It is for the employer to decide as to whether a fresh transfer order has to be issued taking into consideration the administrative exigency and no liberty need to be granted, for that purpose. Recording the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, it is hoped that the order, dated 02.07.2011, would not be given effect to and would be withdrawn at the earliest. 4.The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AS) /TRUE COPY/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The General Manager, The Management of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam)Ltd., Pudukottai Region, Pudukkottai. 2. The Branch Manager, Pudukottai Town Branch of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation(Kumbakonam) Ltd., Pudukkottai Region, Pudukkottai. +1cc to Mr.S.Arunachalam, Advocate SR.No.24679 W.P.(MD) No.8065 of 2011 and MP(MD)No.1 & 2/2011 25.07.2011 gcg PA/28.07.2011/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/