Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 166
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
SUJOY PAUL, NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO, JJ.
M.A. Khader Mohiuddin - Petitioner
Versus
The Hon’ble High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad, rep. by its Registrar (Admn.) & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6055 of 2024
Decided On : 12-08-2024
For the Petitioners: Ms. Ch. Sujatha.
For the Respondents: Sri Harender Pershad, Senior Counsel representing Sri A. Naren Rudra.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a retirement application must be pending for the deeming clause to apply, and transfers are generally administrative unless proven to be punitive.
Headnote:
Retirement - Voluntary Retirement - Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980 - The court interpreted the deeming clause in the rules, concluding that the application for voluntary retirement was not pending beyond the stipulated period, thus denying the petitioner's claim.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a declaration that his application for voluntary retirement was deemed accepted and challenged transfer orders from Secunderabad to Adilabad, claiming no decision was made on his retirement application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the application for voluntary retirement was returned to the petitioner and not pending, thus the deeming clause did not apply. The transfer order was deemed administrative and not punitive.
Issues: Whether the application for voluntary retirement was pending and whether the transfer order was punitive or administrative.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if a retirement application is not pending beyond the stipulated period, the deeming clause does not apply. Transfers are administrative unless proven otherwise.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed, allowing the petitioner to join at Adilabad.
ORDER :
Sujoy Paul, J.
This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a declaration that petitioner’s application seeking voluntary retirement dated 28.01.2023 must be treated as deemed to have been accepted as per Rules. The petitioner has also called in question the transfer orders dated 24.01.2023 and 23.01.2024 whereby he was transferred from Secunderabad to Adilabad.
2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner on 28.01.2023 submitted an application/notice before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, through proper channel seeking permission to voluntarily retire after three months. The specific stand of the petitioner is that no express decision was ever taken on this notice of the petitioner regarding voluntary retirement. The petitioner preferred appeal dated 08.09.2023 for taking decision on the said application for voluntary retirement, but to no avail.
3. The second limb of attack is to the transfer order issued vide ROC.No.90/2023-C-3, dated 24.01.2023, whereby the petitioner was transferred from the I Additional Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, to the unit of District Judge, Adilabad, on administrative grounds. The petitioner filed additional material papers to submit that he made unsuccessful efforts to join at Adilabad. The petitioner along with memo dated 18.03.2024 filed applications submitting his joining before the Adilabad Court pursuant to transfer order dated 23.01.2024.
4. By placing reliance on Clause (2) of Rule 48-A of the Telangana Revised Pension Rules, 1980, it is submitted that if no decision is taken by the department on his application for voluntary retirement, pursuant to the deeming clause, the petitioner will be deemed to have been retired on completion of stipulated period of three months. In support of these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on judgments of Apex Court in the cases of State of Haryana vs. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293, Virender Chaudhary vs. Bharat Petroleum Corpn., (2009) 1 SCC 297, Vijay S. Sathaye vs. Indian Airlines Ltd., (2013) 10 SCC 253, Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam, (1977) 4 SCC 441, B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat, (1978) 2 SCC 202 and Union of India vs. Sayed Muzaffar MR, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76 and also the judgment of this Court in V. Radhika vs. The State of Telangana, MANU/TL/1207/2023.
5. The transfer order (Annexure P-2) is assailed by contending that the same is punitive and mala fide in nature. The transfer order is not passed on administrative grounds, although it cites such administrative reason. By placing reliance on the reference letters mentioned in the impugned transfer orders dated 24.01.2023 and 23.01.2024, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the operative reason for transfer relates to alleged conduct of the petitioner and if, for said reason the petitioner is transferred, the orders are certainly punitive in nature. In support of this contention, she placed reliance on the judgments of Supreme Court in the cases of Somesh Tiwari vs. Union of India, (2009) 2 SCC 592 and The Management of the Syndicate bank Ltd. vs. The Workmen, AIR 1966 SC 1283 and judgments of Madras High Court in the cases of K M Elumalai vs. Additional Director General of Police, Director General of Prisons; Superintendent of Prisons, 2009 LawSuit (Mad) 1429 and S. Sevugan vs. Chief Educational Officer, 2006 LawSuit (Mad) 152.
6. Per contra, Sri Harender Pershad, learned Senior counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner preferred application for voluntary retirement on 28.01.2023. The said application was preferred before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereas, the petitioner was already transferred by order dated 24.01.2023. The petitioner was relieved on 28.01.2023 and since, he did not accept the relieving order and left no stone unturned to avoid service of transfer/relieving order, the said orders were sent to h
