IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY WRIT PETITION No.16604 of 1999 Between: K.Venkateswarlu. … Petitioner And A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reptd., by its Managing Director, Mushirabad, Hyderabad and three others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri G.Praveen Kumar for Sri A.K.Jayaprakash Rao. Counsel for the respondents: Sri A.Padmanabha Rao for Smt.B.G.Uma Devi, Standing Counsel for APSRTC. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to set aside order dated 10-2-1999 passed by respondent No.3, whereby the petitioner is repatriated from Mahabubnagar region to Medak region of APSTRC as mechanic grade-II. The petitioner initially worked as causal labour in Wanaparthy depot of Mahabubnagar region. His services as mazdoor were regularized in the erstwhile Medak division of APSRTC. With effect from 10-1-1989 the petitioner’s post was re-categorized as cleaner and on 5-2-1991 he was promoted as mechanic grade- II, initially, for a period of three months and later it was extended by order dated 21-6-1991. The petitioner made a request for his transfer on deputation from Mahabubnagar region on 2-8-1994 and 31-5-1995. Considering the said request, the petitioner was transferred on deputation to Mahabubnagar region on 7-6-1995 for a period of one year, which period was extended by the impugned proceedings dated 10-2- 1999 till 6-8-1999 by repatriating the petitioner to Medak region with effect from 7-8-1999. This order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. The admitted facts disclose that the petitioner holds his substantive post in Medak region and at his request he was sent on deputation to Mahabubnagar region. A deputationist cannot, therefore, raise any legitimate grievance against his repatriation after completion of the period of deputation. The employer has unfettered right to repatriate the deputationist to his parent region or place where he holds the substantive post. Therefore, I do not find any illegality, whatsoever, in the impugned order. At any rate, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 6-8-1999 the petitioner is continued for more than nine years in the deputation post. Therefore, the grievance, which the petitioner had if any, has been completely redressed on account of the interim order, which enabled the petitioner to continue for a very long period even after expiry of his deputation period. I do not, therefore, find any reason to set aside the impugned order. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ------------------------------------ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:22-12-2008 MNR