IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17430 of 2008 Between: G. Laxman S/o. Krishnaiah Jagtial, Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Rep. by its General Manager, Telecom District, Karimnagar . 2 The Assistant General Manager (Admn) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Karimnagar . .....RESPONDENT(S) 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 to issue and appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declarign the action of the Respondents herein in not considering the petitioner's representation dt. 15-7-2008 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to forthwith consider the same and retain the petitioner at Jagtial, and to grant such other relief or reliefs Counsel for the Petitioner:MRS.S.NANDA Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.(SC FOR B.S.N.L) The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17430 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner is working as a Telecom Mechanic at Jagityal in B.S.N.L. Through order, dated 26.07.2008, the 2nd respondent transferred him to Medipally in the same District. The same is challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that he has crossed 55 years of age and Clause (13) of the Transfer Policy, dated 07.05.2008, issued by the Corporate Office, prohibits transfer of employees of that age. Several other contentions are also urged. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. It is no doubt true that in Clause (13) of the Transfer policy, it is mentioned that the employees, who crossed the age of 55 years as on 31st March of any year, shall normally be exempted from transfers, involving change of station. However, Clause 13(iii) commences with the word “generally”. The prohibition or suggestion contained in the Clause is not absolute in nature. Much would depend upon the relative hardship that an employee would be subjected to, in the event of transfer. It is not in dispute that the petitioner stayed at the present station, for more than a decade, and his transfer is to another place in the same District. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is put to any serious hardship. In case, he is undergoing any hardship, he can certainly make a representation on completion of one year of stay at that place. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed, upholding the order of transfer, but leaving it open to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents on completion of one year of stay at the transferred place. The same shall be taken into account by the 2nd respondent and appropriate orders be passed on its own merits. There shall no order as to costs. _________ 11.08.2008 JSU ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{VSMI} THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 17430 of 2008 Date: 11.08.2008 JSU