Wp/13864/2009 Of D. Shyama Sudha v. The Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF JULYTWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENTTHE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAHand THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 13864 of 2009 Between: D. Shyama Sudha, D/o. Aashirvadham, Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Eluru, Range, West Godavari District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Aayakar Bhavan, Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Office of the Commissioner ofIncome Tax-I, Visakhapatnam. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in thecircumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will bepleased to issue order or orders or direction or writ more particularly one in thenature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to O.A.No. 567/09,rejection order dated 6-7-2009 and Transfer Order No. CCAP/4(2)/Estt/2009,dt. 20-6-2009 transferring the petitioner from Eluru to Visakhapatnam andquash the same as illegal and arbitrary. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.M.L.ALI Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.B.NARASIMHA SARMA The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri P.Swaroop Reddy) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging theorder of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench,in O.A.No. 567 of 2009, dated 8.7.2009, and the Transfer ordersNo.CCAP/4 (2)/ Estt/2009, dated 20.6.2009, transferring thepetitioner from Eluru to Visakhapatnam. While the petitioner was working as AdditionalCommissioner of Income Tax at Eluru, she has been transferredto Visakhapatnam. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that theparents of the petitioners are sick and they cannot move toVisakhapatnam along with the petitioner. This contention cannot be accepted, as Visakhapatnamwould have better medical facilities than Eluru. Another contention of the learned counsel for thepetitioner is that a case has been filed against the parents of thepetitioner by their daughter-in-law and therefore they cannot goto Visakhapatnam. This contention is totally irrelevant. During the course of arguments, it is revealed that thepetitioner is a married woman and her husband is working atEluru, but surprisingly she is not asking for retention at Eluru onthat ground. Considering all the circumstances particularly the fact thatthe minimum period required to be posted at a place is twoyears, which is completed, and further as she is already relievedon 10.7.2009, as reported by the learned Standing Counsel forthe respondents, there are absolutely no grounds to admit thewrit petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage ofadmission. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ___________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J. 13.7.2009kpr