-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No 27796 of 2007 Between: J. Prasada Rao s/o J. Krishna Murthy, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Srikakulam, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Asst. General manager, SBI Zonal Office, Region-II, Balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-530 003. 2 The Deputy General manager and Appellate Authority, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Siripuram. 3 The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Srikakulam. 4 Sri. Pant, Manager, Staff in Charge, Zonal Office, Region-II, balaji Nagar, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam-530 003. .....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 Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents transferring the petitioner to SBI Branch at Palakonda as Spl. Asst. From SBI Main Branch at Srikakulam by issuing the impugned orders in Letter No. (3-2(HR)F. No. 25 Spl. 34 dt 7-8-2007 of the 4th respondent, relieving orders of 34 d respondent F. No. 25 dt 22-9-2007, Lr. No. (3-2) (HR)F. 25 others 30 dt 22- 10-2007 of 1st respondent directing to join at Palakonda branch as illegal, unfair, unjust and without jurisdiction and Consequently direct the respondents to retain and petitioner Sr. Asst. at SBI Nain Branch at Srikakulam as before and pass such other order or orders which are deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.Ramabrahmam Counsel for the Respondents: Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao The Court made the following ORDER: The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant in State Bank of India. When he was functioning at Srikakulam Branch, the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, issued proceedings, dated 07.08.2007, proposing to transfer the petitioner to Palakonda Branch as Special Assistant, by providing special allowance of Rs.2,500/-. The petitioner was required to convey the acceptance. It was also provided that in case the acceptance is not received within three days, the offer shall be deemed to have been not accepted. On his part, the petitioner did not convey his view. However, vide proceedings, dated 22.09.2007, the third respondent, Chief General Manager, relieved the petitioner and required him to report at Palakonda Branch. The same is challenged in this writ petition. Sri P.Ramabrahmam, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was unable to move out from Srikakulam, on account of the ailment of his father and when he was in dilemma whether to receive the benefit of Rs.2,500/- per month or to forego it, he was relieved from Srikakulam Branch. He submits that the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Sri E.Madan Mohan Rao, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the relieving of the petitioner and requiring him to join at Palakonda was not in pursuance of the letter, dated 07.08.2007, but on account of the general transfers affected, through proceedings, dated 13.09.2007, issued by the Chief Manager, (H.R.). He submits that the petitioner cannot take any exception to the general transfers. An otherwise attractive offer had been made to the petitioner vide letter, dated 07.08.2007, personally. For one reason or the other, the petitioner did not convey his views on the matter. It is no doubt true that by operation of Clause-IV of the order, the offer was deemed to have been rejected by the petitioner. Shortly thereafter, the petitioner was relieved from Srikakulam and was required to report at Palakonda. The petitioner was not aware of the general transfers affected vide proceedings, dated 13.09.2007. He was under impression that he was sent to Palakonda only in pursuance of the letter, dated 07.08.2007. Inasmuch as the relieving of the petitioner at Srikakulam is in pursuance of the order of general transfers, this Court cannot interfere with the action of the respondents. The respondents themselves made an offer to the petitioner vide letter, dated 07.08.2007. The petitioner was under impression that he can remain at Srikakulam even by foregoing a fabulous offer of Rs.2,500/- per month. However, if it became inevitable, the respondents cannot deny that benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing that the period for communicating the consent of the petitioner for the offer made, through letter, dated 07.08.2007, shall stand extended by one (1) week from today and depending upon the option of the petitioner, the respondents shall take necessary steps. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:22.04.2008. kdl ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{TRT}