IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13097 of 2008 Between: G.V. Gopal Rao S/o. Late GVL Narasimha Rao In A.P. Society for Training & Employment Promotion (APSTEP), R/o. 2-1-566/B/1, Nallakunta, Hyderabad-500044. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by is Prl. Secretary YAT & C (YS) Dept., Secretariat Building, Hyderabad. 2 The Managing Director, A.P. Society for Training & Employment Promotilon (APSTEP), O/o. Commissioner Youth Services, 5-4-203, Behind Boats Club, Secunderabad- 500003. 3 The District Collector cum Chairman Keesara Society for For Training & Employment Promotilon (KSTEP), Department of Youth Services, R R District at 1st Floor, Sneha Silver Jubilee Bhavan, Collectorate Complex, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-500004. 4 The Chief Executive Officer, KSTEP R R District at 1st Floor, Sneha Silver Jubilee Bhavan, Collectorate Complex, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad-500004. 5 The Chief Executive Officer, SETSRI Society for Training, Employment & Promotion, Srikakulam, O/o. Collectorate, Srikakulam. .....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 appropriate writ, order or direction particularly a writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to proceedings No.851/APSTEP/A1/06-2, dt. 16.06.2008 and quash the same and issue a consequential direction to retrain me as Manager in the Office of the Respondent No.4 and pass such other further orders and the petitioner further prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner with effect from 22.11.2007 to 14.05.2008, 5 days in October, 2007 and continue to pay the salary to the petitioner within such time as may be fixed by the Hon'ble Court and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.J.PRABHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR LABOUR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is working as Manager in the A.P.Society for Training and Employment Promotion (APSTEP), Hyderabad. At present, he is working in the unit of the second respondent i.e., the fourth respondent. Through order, dated 16.06.2008, the second respondent transferred the petitioner to the Center at Srikakulam. Apart from challenging the order of transfer, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondents to release the salary for the period from 22.11.2007 to 14.05.2008. Sri J.Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that his client has been subjected to harassment, through series of orders in the recent past, which, in turn, were set aside by this Court in W.P.No.574 of 2008. He contends that hardly within one month from the date on which he joined with the fourth respondent, as a consequence of the orders of this Court, the impugned order is passed. Grievance is also made about the arrears of salary. Sri K.Ramanuja Chari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the transfer of the petitioner is on administrative grounds and since the petitioner completed three years of service at Hyderabad, no exception can be taken to the impugned order. He further contends that the arrears of salary have since been released to the petitioner, vide proceedings, dated 19.06.2008. It is not in dispute that the petitioner completed his tenure in Hyderabad, in one capacity or the other. Transfer being an incidence of service, an employee is under obligation to serve the places to which he is transferred. Interference by this Court is limited to the instances, where the transfer is effected before completion of the normal tenure, or on mala fide grounds. It is true that, on an earlier occasion, the petitioner was sought to be shifted on the basis of the orders passed by authorities not vested with the powers. This Court interfered and set aside the said orders. The impugned order was passed by the second respondent, who admittedly is appointing authority. Except stating that the petitioner finds it difficult to work at Srikakulam, no valid or legal ground is urged. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of transfer. The apprehension of the petitioner that he may not be retransferred to any place on the basis of the alleged ban on transfers, is not well founded. So far as the relief in relation to the arrears of salary is concerned, the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed with the issuance of proceedings, dated 19.06.2008. Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J. Dated:24.06.2008 GJ