IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 22339 of 2008 Between: The Collector & District Magistrate, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 G. Samadhana Rao Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. 2 P. Radhakrishna Murthy, Tahsildar, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District. .....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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the orders of the Hon'ble A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No.4220/2007 dated 23.10.2007 as being erroneous, illegal and unreasonable and quash th same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:GP FOR SERVICES II Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO :22339 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED, J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 23.10.2007 in O.A.No.4220 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) whereunder and whereby the Tribunal while dismissing the O.A. filed by the first respondent, directed the petitioner herein to treat the period from 26.7.2007 to 23.10.2007 and from 29.05.2007 to 16.07.2007 as on duty. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 2. The first respondent, who is the Mandal Revenue Inspector-II, Savalyapuram Mandal, Guntur District, has filed the above O.A. questioning the order dated 29.5.2007 of the District Collector, Guntur- petitioner herein wherein he was transferred to the Office of the Tahsildar, Machavaram in the existing vacancy pursuant to the councelling conducted. According to the first respondent, he has not completed more than two years service at Savalyapuram in the cadre of Mandal Revenue Inspector-II and as such his transfer is not in accordance with G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 1.5.2007. 3. A counter was filed before the Tribunal stating that the first respondent has been working at Savalayapuram for the last 16 years in different cadres and as per the G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 1.5.2007, person who is working in all the cadres at a particular place has to be taken into account for calculating the period of stay at a particular place. 4. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the first respondent had opted for transfer to Machavaram during the councelling and also G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 1.5.2007, has dismissed the O.A., but ordered to treat the period from 26.07.2007, on which date interim orders were granted, till disposal of the O.A. i.e. 23.10.2007, and also from the date of impugned order therein i.e. 29.5.2007 till the date of relief i.e. 16.7.2007 as on duty. 5. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the petitioner contended that once O.A. is dismissed, the interim orders get merged with final orders and the Tribunal has grossly erred in treating the period from 26.07.2007 to 23.10.2007 and also from 29.5.2007 to 16.7.2007 as on duty and prays to set-aside the impugned order. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the first respondent participated in the councelling and exercised his option for transfer to Machavaram and accordingly he was transferred as per G.O.Ms.No.100 dated 1.5.2007. With regard to treating the period as on duty from 26.07.2007, on which date interim orders were granted, till the date of disposal of the O.A. i e. 23.10.2007 and also from the date of impugned order therein i.e.29.5.2007 till the date of relief i.e. 16.7.2007, it has to be seen that when the interim order was granted by the Tribunal, the first respondent had not joined at Machavaram and once interim order was subsisting, no fault could be attributed to the first respondent and the Tribunal has rightly directed the petitioner to treat the period from 26.7.2007 to 23.10.2007 as on duty and in view of the observations made in the interim order, the Tribunal has also rightly directed to treat the period as on duty from 29.05.2007 to 16.7.2007. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the Tribunal and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction. 7. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J ___________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 15.10.2008 Stp ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MSN}