AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The only point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was inducted into service as Development Officer in the 1st respondent Insurance Company and his next promotion was Assistant Administrative Officer which he was holding at the regional office, Hyderabad, but, the petitioner is transferred by the impugned proceedings dated 21-7-1997 to Branch Office, Hanamakonda, which, it is alleged, is a result of malafide action of the 2nd respondent for certain alleged transactions outside the purview of the service. The learned Counsel questions the transfer of the petitioner on the ground that the 1st respondent has set out certain guidelines for the job protection and transfer policy of the officers and in point 1.2(a) of the said guidelines it is clearly stated that transfer of Officers should be planned only once in a year during the period of March-May. It is further submitted that according to point No.3.5 of the guidelines, an officer shall ordinarily be given a month''s notice in respect of his transfer from one station to other, but, the same is not followed in the instant case.
Mr. Srinivasa Murthy, learned Standing Counsel for respondents submits that right through from the date of appointment in the year 1980 the officer is working in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad in one branch or the other and the transfer is on the administrative grounds as there was a vacancy, on an officer being promoted at Branch Office, Cuddapah.
It is a settled rule that transfer is the incident of service. Any employee will not have any vested right to work at a particular place according to his choice. Notwithstanding the guidelines, so long he has to serve with the employer he has to work at any place wherever he is transferred on the administrative exigencies unless it affects his post or reduction in monetary emoluments. The fact that the petitioner has been working in the twin cities for the last 17 years has not been denied by the Counsel for the petitioner.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a consequence of the dismissal of the main writ petition, the interim order granted by this Court in WPMP 22874/97 dated 20-8-1997 stands vacated.