IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOUR PRESENT THE HON'BLE DR JUSTICE G.YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION NO : 16899 of 2004 Between: P.Nanda Gopal S/o.P.Ram Murthy Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation R/o.16-9-809, Old Malakpet, Opp.Water Pump House, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Represented by its Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2 The Director (Vigilance and Security), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 3 The Assistant Director (Vigilance & Security), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Vizianagaram Zone, Vizianagaram. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ declare the order No.Sd.1/255/(9)/ 2004-PO,II dated 4-9-2004, Transferring the petitioner along with sanctioned post is illegal, arbitrary and unjust; and consequently direct the respondent to retain the petitioner at Hyderabad till he attain the age of superannuation of 58 years of service on 30-6-2005. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR Counsel for the Respondents: Sri V.T.M.Prasad (Standing Counsel for A.P.S.R.T.C.) The Court at the admission stage made the following : THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU WRIT PETITION No. 16899 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Chief Security Inspector in the 1strespondent- Corporation since 12.06.2004. While he is working at Hyderabad, he was issued an order on 04.09.2004, transferring him to Vizianagarm, along with the sanctioned post, and he was asked to report at Vizianagaram. The petitioner submits that he is due to attain the age of the superannuation on 30.06.2005, transferring the petitioner from Hyderabad to a far of place, just before the retirement, is unjust and arbitrary. The petitioner further contends that he made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2 on 13.09.2004, and so far, no orders have been passed by taking into consideration the circumstances explained by the petitioner in his representation. The petitioner is amenable for transfer to any of the regions within the control of the 1st respondent-corporation. The petitioner seeks an exception, on the ground that he is transferred to a far of place at the fag end of his service, when he is hardly left with nine months service before retirement. Since the petitioner made a representation to the respondents 1 and 2, they are directed to pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, on the said representation, regarding his retention at Hyderabad, by taking into consideration the difficulties expressed by the petitioner, in the said representation The petitioner may not be relieved till the respondents 1 and 2 pass appropriate orders on the representation of the petitioner, if he is not already relieved as on today. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU,J ​ 21st September, 2004 bud Copy to: 1. The Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad. 2. The Director (Vigilance & Security), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mushirabad, Hyderabad 3. The Assistant Director(Vigilance & Security), Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Vizianagaram Zone, Vizianagaram 4. Two C.D.Copies.