IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO : 15271 of 2008 Between: G. Veerabramham S/o. G. Chinna Veeranna Rajampet, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Postmaster General, A.P. Circle, Hyderabad. 2 The Postmaster General, Kurnool Region, Kurnool. 3 The Superintendent of Post Offices, Kadapa Division, Kadapa. 4 The Inspector of Post Offices, Rajampet Sub-Division, Rajampet-516115. .....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 of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing or setting aside the orders dated 02.07.2008 in O.A.No.228/2006 of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, declaring the same as arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, misconceived, and in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, duly directing the Respondents to continue the Petitioner to work as GDS / Mail Deliverer, Rajampet Head Post Office, treating the petitioner as having been regularly absorbed in the said post, with effect from the date of joining i.e., 01.04.2006 having been working continuously from that date till date, with all the consequential benefits, and be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.SANKA RAMAKRISHANA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED & THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Writ Petition No. 15271 of 2008 ORDER: (per GHULAM MOHAMMED,J) This writ petition is filed seeking to quash the order dated 02-07-2008 in O.A. No.228 of 2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), by virtue of which the Tribunal has dismissed the O.A. holding that since the petitioner’s original appointment was as GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta, he had to go back to Perlakunta. 2. The petitioner was selected and regularly appointed as GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta, pursuant to a notification issued by the third respondent. He took charge on 19.3.2001. Subsequently, the regular GDS/BPM died on 23.2.2006 and the post fell vacant and no regular arrangement was done. The petitioner was asked to take over charge and arrange substitute in addition to his normal duties even though there is no provision in the rules. As there were no SB/RD.RPLI accounts transacted in the branch office and there was no enough work including incoming /outgoing mails except on certain occasions in a month, the petitioner made representation on 20.3.2006 to the third respondent requesting him to post him in any other branch office where there was work. The request of the petitioner was considered by the third respondent and he issued instructions on 28.3.2006 to the fourth respondent to declare the post of GDS/MC/Perlakunta as surplus and discharge the petitioner from the said post to report to Postmaster, Rajampet for appointment as GDS/MC in the existing vacant post. The petitioner was relieved from the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta on 31.3.2006 and he joined at Rajampet HPO on 1.4.2006. On 10.4.2006, the third respondent has issued an order, which was addressed to the fourth respondent, intimating that the petitioner should be sent back to the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta as the Regional Office, Kurnool Region, had not accepted identifying the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta to be declared as surplus. The petitioner immediately proceeded on leave and filed O.A.No.228 of 2006 challenging the order dated 10.4.2006. 3. In spite of several opportunities being given, the respondents did not file their counter in the O.A. before the Tribunal. 4. Letter No.19-10/2004 GDS dated 17.7.2006 of Department of Posts, which has allowed limited transfer facility to Gramin Dak Sevaks, reads as under: “Sub:- Limited Transfer Facility to Gramin Dak Sevaks. As per the order contained in Directorate letter No.27/85/pen(EDC &Trg) dated 12.9.1988, the ED Agents, now called Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) were allowed limited transfer facility from one post to another without coming through the agency of employment exchange in exceptional circumstances viz., when an ED post falls vacant in the same office or in any office in the same place or where ED Agent becomes surplus due to abolition of the post and he/she is offered alternate appointment in a place other than the place where he/she was holding the post.” 5. The amended Rule 3 of the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules,2001, reads as under: i) A GDS who is posted to a distant place on redeployment in the event of abolition of the post. ii) GDS appointed on compassionate grounds and posted at distance place. iii) Woman GDS on her marriage/remarriage. iv) Where the GDS himself/herself suffers from extreme hardship due to a disease and for medical attention/treatment, such transfer may be allowed on production of a valid medical certificate from the medical officer of a Government hospital. v) Where the GDS is looking after the welfare of a physically handicapped/mentally handicapped persons/dependent and he/she requires to move to different places to give support to such physically/mentally challenged person/dependent. 3. The limited transfer facility to GDS from post/unit to another will be subject to the following conditions. The conditions mentioned below are only illustrative. (i) A GDS will normally be eligible for only one transfer during the entire career. (ii) Request for such transfer will be considered against the future vacancies of GDS and that too after examining the possibility of recombination of duties of GDS. (iii) TRCA of the new post shall be fixed after assessment of the actual workload of the post measured with respect to the cycle beat in respect of GDSMD/MC/Packer/Mail Messenger in terms of the Directorate letter No.14.11/97-PAP dated 1.10.1997. (iv) Past service of the GDS will be counted for assessing the eligibility for appearing in departmental examination GDS will not have any claim to go back to the previous recruitment unit/division. When a GDS is transferred at his own request and the transfer is approved by the competent authority irrespective of the length of service, he/she will rank junior in the seniority list of the new unit to all the GDS of that unit who exist in the seniority list on the date on which the transfer is ordered. A declaration to the effect that he/she accepts the seniority on transfer in accordance with this should be obtained before a GDS is transferred. (v) Transfer will be at the cost and expenditure of GDS. No expenditure whatsoever on this account will be borne by the Department under any circumstances. (vi) Request for transfer of the GDS will be confirmed to transfer within the same Circle. (vii) No transfer request will be entertained within 3 years of initial recruitment. 4. Power in this regard will vest with the Heads of Circles who will decide each and every individual case on merit keeping in view aforementioned criteria and standard of “Public Interest”. 6. The Tribunal taking into consideration the above referred letter dated 17.7.2006, the amended Rule 3 of the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001 and the facts and circumstances of the case, has observed that on representation of the petitioner himself about inadequate work at Perlakunta, he was asked to report to the Rajampet HPO for appointment as GDS/MD in the existing vacancy and the third respondent vide letter dated 28.3.2006 asked the fourth respondent to identify the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta as surplus. The proposal to abolish the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta, recommended by the third respondent has not been accepted by the Regional Officer Viz., PMG, Kurnool- respondent No.2. Consequently, there was no other option but to revert the petitioner to his original post. Even as per the Department letter dated 17.7.2006, limited transfer facility is available only to the GDS who is posted to distant place and in the case of abolition of the posts. In the instant case, neither the post has been abolished nor was the petitioner sent to a distant place. There is no other ground available in the circular on which the petitioner could be transferred to Rajampet and therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner even though originally posted as GDS/MC/MD at Perlakunta, he was relieved and asked to join at Rajampet HPO on 01-04-2006 in the existing vacancy in view of the abolition of his post at Perlakunta by the third respondent; that the proposal to send the petitioner back to his original post i.e. Perlakunta amounts to virtual transfer; that the transfers in the GDS cadre are prohibited as per the Sub-Rule (iv) of Rule 3 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules and that the transfer of the petitioner from the post of GDS/MD at Rajampet on the ground that the Regional Office has not accepted the proposal to post him as GDS/MD at Rajampet HPO, is in violation of GDS Rules. He further contended that the Tribunal has not gone into the facts and circumstances of the case and erroneously dismissed the O.A. and he prayed to allow the writ petition. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the petitioner was originally appointed as GDS/MC/MD at Perlakunta and on his representation that at Perlakunta the work was adequate, he was asked to report to the Rajampet HPO for appointment as GDS/MD in the existing vacancy and the third respondent sent letter dated 28.3.2006 to the fourth respondent to identify the post of GDS/MC/MD as surplus. But, proposal sent by the third respondent to abolish the post of GDS/MC/MD, Perlakunta, was rejected by the Regional Officer-Post Master General, Kurnool- second respondent. When the post of GDS/MC/MD was not abolished at Perlakunta, there was no reason to continue the petitioner at Rajampet and the authorities have rightly sent him back to his original post at Perlakunta and that does not amount to transfer. Hence, we are of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is on sound footing and it does not suffer from any legal infirmities so as to call for interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J __________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J 22-09-2008 Stp