IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 26483 of 2008 Between: P.S.V.Sanjeeva Rao S/o.Chiranjeeva Rao Ponduru Branch, Ponduru, Srikakulam District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Bank of India, rep. by its Assistant General Manager, Region-II, Siripuram, Visakhapatnam. 2 The State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Ponduru Branch, Ponduru, Srikakulam District. 3 The State Bank of India, rep. by its Branch Manager, Kaviti Branch, Srikakulam District. .....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 in issuing the impugned order of transfer vide proceedings F.No.25/195, dated 22.11.2008 of the 3rd respondent as arbitrary, illegal and set-aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SMT.Y.PADMAVATHI The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the transfer order dated 22.11.2008 passed by the 3rd respondent – Branch Manager, Kaviti Branch, Srikakulam District transferring him to Kota Bommali. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent-State Bank of India. It is his case that he was posted to work at Ponduru Branch, which is a rural village and 20 kms away from Srikakulam more than 18 years ago and since then he has been working there. As he is the longest servicing employee in rural branches in the entire region, he has been making representations seeking his transfer to Srikakulam town, in vein. However, he was transferred to Kaviti Branch. Aggrieved by the same, he approached this Court by way of filing W.P.No.22824 of 2008 and this Court by order dated 17.102.008 directed to continue him at Ponduru branch, if nobody has been posted in his place. Pursuant to the said orders, he made a representation to the 1st respondent – Assistant General Manager, Region-II, Srikakulam. According to the petitioner, the 1st respondent informed him that he cannot be continued at Ponduru branch and he would be adjusted either at Srikakulam or in a nearby branch. The grievance of the petitioner is that on the advise given by the 1st respondent to withdraw the writ petition so as to adjust him either at Srikakulam, Gara or Amudalavalasa, he withdrew the said writ petition but surprisingly the 3rd respondent – Branch Manager, Kaviti Branch, Srikakulam District, vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2008 transferred him to Kota Bommali branch against the undertaking given to him. Hence this writ petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that two Senior Assistants viz., Smt.B.Smt.B.Padmavari and Sri B.Trinadha Rao who were working Ponduru Branch along with the petitioner have been transferred to Srikakulam main branch though they have put in less than 5 years of rural service and rejected the case of the petitioner who has put in 18 years of rural service on the ground that his seniors are working at Srikakulam and they cannot be disturbed. That apart, as per the transfer policy, the employees above the age of 55 years should not be redeployed and that he falls in that excluded category. Even otherwise, considering his past service and his age, the respondents ought to have adjusted him in the place of his choice as per the transfer policy. On 4.12.2008, this Court while issuing notice before admission, ordered status quo obtaining as on that date to be maintained and also directed the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank to file counter. Pursuant to the said directions, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit inter alia stating that the petitioner has been working at Ponduru Branch as Special Assistant and he was transferred on administrative grounds to Kaviti Branch on 29.9.2008. Questioning the same, he approached this Court and filed W.P.No.22824 of 2008 on the ground that Kaviti is 150 kms away from Srikakulam but subsequently withdrew the writ petition for the reasons best known to him. It is specifically denied that assurance was given to him for posting either at Srikakulam, Gara or Amudalavalasa on his withdrawing the writ petition. It is further stated that considering his representations only, he was transferred to Kotabommali Branch, which is a nearest branch of the Bank at Srikakulam to work as Special Assistant. It is also stated that as per the requirement, Special Assistant will draw an allowance of Rs.2,500/- per month along with other allowances and that the post of Special Assistant will be given to clerical staff after completion of 23 years of service. In view of the nature work to be discharged by a Special Assistant, without disturbing the other Special Assistants working at the branches specified by the petitioner, he was posted at Kotabommali branch and that the other branches specified by the petitioner are already having Special Assistants who are equal to his age or more than his age. It is specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the persons working in Srikakulam Branch are seniors to the petitioner and as such they cannot be disturbed and, therefore, the petitioner was posted at Kotabommali. Coming to the contention that the petitioner’s juniors are transferred to Srikakulam whereas his case was negatived, it is stated that those juniors are Assistants and Senior Assistants and they discharge normal clerical duties whereas the petitioner is a Special Assistant having passing powers equal to an officer and will be paid allowance of Rs.2,500/-p.m. more than the ordinary clerks. Therefore, the petitioner cannot equate himself with that of his juniors who are ordinary clerks. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank The petitioner is admittedly working as Special Assistant drawing special pay. Therefore, he cannot compare his case with that of his juniors who were working as Assistant and Senior Assistant. Though it is the specific case of the petitioner that on the undertaking given by the 1st respondent he has withdrawn the earlier writ petition, it is specifically denied in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents that no such undertaking was given. On the other hand it is stated that the petitioner has withdrawn the writ petition for the reasons best known to him and the bank has not made any promise to the petitioner nor suggested to withdraw the writ petition. Coming to the contention that the employees who crossed 55 years of age cannot be deployed, it is stated that the petitioner has not crossed 55 years of age as on the date of transfer and, therefore, he does not come under the exempted category as per the transfer policy. It is also averred that considering the case of the petitioner only, they have posted him at Kota Bommali, which is only 35 kms. away from Srikakulam on administrative reasons. There can be no dispute on the proposition of law that no government servant or employee of a public undertaking has any right to be retained at a particular place, and he is liable to be transferred anywhere, and more so when transfer is an incidence of service, the Courts should not ordinarily, interfere in such matters. In the instant case also, it is stated that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds. The petitioner has not made out any case to say that his transfer is affected with malafide intention warranting interference. Therefore, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned transfer order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing to forego the special allowance of Rs.2,500/- which is being paid to the Special Assistants if his case is considered for posting at the place of his choice. In the circumstances, it is open to the petitioner to submit an application to the respondent authorities seeking transfer to the place of his choice on his foregoing the allowance being paid to the Special Assistant. If such an application is made, the respondents may consider the same and pass appropriate orders, within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the representation. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. N.V.RAMANA,J DT. 24 ..12..2008 msv. Note: Furnish CC in two days. B/O ks