HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4832 of 2010 Dated: 05-03-2010 Between: P.R.C.Rao. … Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.4832 of 2010 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri S.M.Subhan, and Smt. W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order, dated 04.11.2009, issued by the 2nd respondent in Proceedings No.E5/255(5)/2009-RM-KDP. 3. The petitioner is working as a Coach Builder in the respondent-A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, and is presently working in Pulivendula Depot in Kadapa District. By the impugned order, he is transferred to Jammalamadugu Depot. 4. In the writ petition, it is the grievance of the petitioner that by availing loan, he is constructing a house in his native village Vempally, and if transfer is effected at this stage, it will hamper the construction work. It is also stated that several juniors to him, who were having a longstanding service at Pulivendula Depot, are not disturbed, but however, he is being disturbed by virtue of the impugned order and is transferred to a far-off place. 5. After the orders of transfer are passed on 4th November 2009, the petitioner has submitted a representation, dated 10.11.2009, wherein, he has requested the authorities to continue him in the same Station for about three months, or in alternative, to consider posting him in any other nearby place, so that his construction work is not hampered. 6. Upon a perusal of the impugned transfer order, it appears that the said order is passed in normal course. In that view of the matter, this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with such transfer. On instructions, it is submitted by Smt.W.V.S. Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents, that after the orders of transfer are passed, the petitioner has made a representation, seeking to continue him in the same Station for about three months, or to consider posting him in a nearby place, and the same is pending consideration. It is further stated that the petitioner is not yet relieved from Pulivendula Depot. 7. In view of pendency of the petitioner’s representation, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 10.11.2009, and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Pending orders to be passed on the representation of the petitioner, the order of transfer shall not be enforced, and he shall be allowed to work at Pulivendula Depot. 8. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 5th March 2010 ajr