1 APHC010714872016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION NO: 19730/2016 Between: A.P. Electricity Employees Muslim Minority Assn., Guntur. ...PETITIONER AND The Transmission Corp Of A P Ltd Hyderabad And 3 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A.K.JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. V.V.SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) WRIT PETITION No.20540/2016 Between: The A.P.Power Engineers Association, Rep.by its General Secretary, YSR Kadapa District ...PETITIONER AND State of A.P. Principal Secretary, Energy, Hyderabad and 4 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. KAVITI MURALI KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. V.V.SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. GP FOR ENERGY (AP) WRIT PETITION NO: 20441/2017] Between: Andhra Rastra Power Employees Union ...PETITIONER AND Transmission Corporation of A.P.Ltd., Rep.by its Chairman & Managing Director And 3 Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A K JAYAPRAKASH RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) WRIT PETITION NO: 20863/2016 Between: General Secretary, United Electricity Employees Union, Krishna Dist ...PETITIONER AND Chairman & Managing Director, A.P.Transco, Hyderabad and 3 ...RESPONDENT(S) 3 Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. NAGARAJU NAGURU, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) WRIT PETITION NO: 20991/2016 Between: The United Electricity Employees Union, ...PETITIONER AND The A P Transco and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. NAGARAJU NAGURU, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) WRIT PETITION NO: 17606/2017 Between: The United Electricity Employees Union, ...PETITIONER AND The A P Transco and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 4 1. V.V.SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 2. NAGARAJU NAGURU, ( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) WRIT PETITION NO: 19227/2017 Between: The Andhra Pradesh Electricity Engineers' Association, ...PETITIONER AND The A P Transco Rep By Its Chairman Managing Director and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PEETA RAMAN Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA SC FOR APSPDCL 2. V V SATISH (SC for APEPDCL) 3. NAGARAJU NAGURU( STANDING COUNSEL FOR APGENCO ) This Court made the following COMMON ORDER: 5 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Nos.19730 of 2016, 20540 of 2016, 20441 of 2017, 20863 of 2016, 20991 of 2016, 17606 of 2017 and 19227 of 2017 COMMON ORDER: All these writ petitions are instituted under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying the reliefs as under:- 2. W.P.No.19730 of 2016: “to issue a writ order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the proceedings No Addl.Secy. DS(L.I.IR&R)/AS(L.IR&R)PO(IR)/JPO/184/2014 dated 15.06.2016 and Proceedings No.CMG/CGM(HRD)/JS(HRD)/DGM-I/PO-II/A.I/D No.497(47)/16 dated 16.06.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent without giving any notice or opportunity and in not extending the protection of transfer and other privileges to the Office Bearers of the Petitioner Association is contrary to law, arbitrary, discriminatory, amounts to unfair labour practice, in violation of principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and grant all consequential benefits and to pass such other order or orders….” 3. W.P.No.20540 of 2016: “to issue a Writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents not extending to the Association the benefit of transfer policy i e the Transfer Policy framed by the Respondent No.2 in Memo No.Addl.Secy/DS(L,IR&R)/AS(L,IR &R) PO(IR)/JPO/185/ 2015, dated 15.06.2016 (as contained in para 19 thereof) as illegal 6 and arbitrary and it is further consequentially prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to extend to the Writ Petitioner’s Association the said benefit continuously and to pass….” 4. W.P.No.20441 of 2017: “to call for the records from the respondents and issue an appropriate Writ, Order of directions, particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st Respondent in not according protection of transfers to the Office Bearers of the petitioner Union by proceedings dated 19.06.2017 in T.O.O.(Addl. Secy.Per) Ms. No.474 on par with other Unions and Associations as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair labour practice and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India and grant consequential benefits…..” 5. W.P.No.20863 of 2016: “to issue a writ or order, orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus— (i) declaring the action of the respondents in conducting verification, from 1959 till 2016, only for once in the year 1989 and failing to conduct periodical verification as per statutory provisions; and (ii) the action of the respondents in not recognizing the petitioner union on par with other 6 trade unions and caste based associations by extending privileges of full time permission, special casual leave of 15 days, attendance certificate, negotiations with management, privilege or protection from being transferred during general transfer counseling etc., on par with other trade unions and caste based service associations; and 7 (iii) consequently, direct the respondents to conduct periodical verification herein after, without fail, and also recognize the petitioner union duly extending all the privileges which have been extended to all other recognized trade unions; and to pass….” 6. W.P.No.20991 of 2016: “to issue a writ or order orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus— (i) declaring the action of the respondents in conducting verification from 1959 till 2016, only for once in the year 1989 and failing to conduct periodical verification as per statutory provisions; and (ii) the action of the respondents in not recognizing the petitioner union on par with other 6 trade unions and caste based associations by extending privileges of full time permission, special casual leave of 15 days, attendance certificate, negotiations with management, privilege or protection from being transferred during general transfer counseling etc., on par with other trade unions and caste based service associations; and (iii) consequently, direct the respondents to conduct periodical verification herein after, without fail, and also recognize the petitioner union duly extending all the privileges, which have been extended to all other recognized trade unions; and to pass….” 7. W.P.No.17606 of 2017: “to issue a writ or order orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus— (i) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing transfer guidelines vide T.O.O.(Addl. Secy-Per) Ms.No.450, dt. 17.05.2017 without extending the privilege or protection from being 8 transferred during general transfer counseling etc to the office bearers of the petitioner trade union on par with other trade unions and caste based service associations as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) consequently direct the respondents to extend the privilege or protection to the officer bearers of the petitioner trade union from being transferred in general transfer counseling every year; and to pass ….” 8. W.P.No.19227 of 2017: “to issue a writ or order orders or directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus— (i) declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing transfer guidelines vide T.O.O.(Addl.Secy-Per)Ms.No.450, dt. 17.05.2017 without extending the privilege or protection from being transferred during general transfer counseling etc., to the office bearers of the petitioner engineers association on par with other trade unions and caste based service associations as illegal, arbitrary, discriminative besides violative of Arts. 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India; and (ii) consequently, direct the respondents to extend the privilege or protection to the officer bearers of the petitioner engineers association from being transferred in general transfer counseling every year; and to pass…..” 9. All these multiple writ petitions are instituted by different Employees Unions/Associations, which formed with a main object to maintain unity and integrity in its respective employees. As the 9 common thread bear among the present cases are all similar and identical cause of actions (questioning the transfer policy framed by the respondents only), as such, this court is constrained to pass common order by clubbing all these cases. 10. The foundational thrust in all these writ petitions, questioning the action of the respondent Corporations in not extending the protection of transfers/privileges to the petitioners’ office bearers, which were extended to the registered Employees Unions/Associations only, is against Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petitions were instituted before this court, challenging the transfer policy Guidelines set out by the respondent Corporations’ authorities. 11. Apparently, counter-affidavits are filed on behalf of the respondents Corporation in W.P.Nos.20441 of 2017, 20863 of 2016, 20991 of 2016, 17606 of 2017 and 19227 of 2017. 12. After unbundling of APSEB (A.P. State Electricity Board), the AP GENCO/AP TRANSCO and DISCOMS emanated in the Electricity Sector. Consequent to the State Government G.O.Ms.No.102, dated 10.06.2016, AP TRANSCO issued the guidelines through Memo vide No.Addl.Secy/Ds(LIR&R)/ 10 AS(LIR&R)/PO(IR)/JPO/185/2015,dated 15.06.2016 and 3rd Respondent/ APEPDCL has issued general transfer policy guidelines for the period 2016-17. In addition to the above referred unions, by virtue of another Memo dated 20.06.2016, the following Unions/ Associations were given protections/privileges from transfers. a. A.P Electricity Employees Union (Regd.No.1104) b. A.P State Electricity Employees Union (Regd.No.327) c.Telugunadu Vidyut Karmika Sangham(Regd.No.B-1245) d.APSEB SC &ST Employees Welfare Association (Regd. No.1589) e.Electricity Backward Classes Employees Welfare Association (Regd.No.1681/2006) f.Electricity O.C. Employees Welfare Association (Regd.No.1088/2008) 13. It is further stated by the respondent Corporation authorities that the above protection was also enlarged to other associations vide Memo No.EPCOR-60001 (01) /3 / 2016-3255-1 COR /C.69727/ D.No.1/28370/16,dated 23.6.2016, which are in addition to above detailed a) to f) employee organizations, are as follows:- g. APSEB Engineers Associations (Regd.No.874/1975) 11 h.APSEB Assistant Engineers Association (Regd.No.B473/1975) i.A.P. Power Diploma Engineers Association (Regd.No.B473/1975) j. A.P Electricity Employees Muslim Minority Association (Regd.No. 151/2010) k. Y.S.R. Vidyut Employees Union (Regd.No.H-128) 14. It is also stated that the above transfer protection is applicable to the respective state presidents, secretaries, regional presidents/ secretaries and also to the Discom Presidents and Secretaries. Transfer protection will be for the station and not for the post. 15. Apart from that, in terms of interim directions issued by this Court, some other unions/associations were also included in the transfer protected list in Para 6(IV) of General Transfer Guidelines as follows:- a.A.P Electricity Bahujana Employees Welfare Association(Regd. No 79/2011). b. United Electricity Employees Union(Regd. No B- 1829/89) c. The A.P Power Engineers Association (Regd.No.279/09). 16. None represented for the petitioners in all the writ petitions. 12 17. Heard Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, learned Standing Counsel for AP Transco and Ms. Aiswarya Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri V.V.Satish, learned Standing Counsel for AP Transco and G.P. for Energy. 18. The learned counsels for the respondent Corporations brought to the notice of this court, with regard to the letter No.ENE01/506OP A3/2019-20, dated 29.08.2019, which was issued by the Government of A.P in relation to the recognition of unions/associations. The relevant portions of the same are extracted, here under for ready reference:- (i). Recognition: (a). The Trade Unions recognized under I.D Act,1947 by Labour Department as on the date of formation of new State of AP may alone shall be recognized, till secret ballot elections are conducted by Labour Department. (b). The associations who signed the tripartite agreement in the erstwhile State of AP alone shall he recognized, till secret ballot elections are conducted by respective utilities. (c). No caste, religion, regional Associations/Unions will not be recognized. (ii) Privileges and Transfer Protection: (a). Only recognized Trade Unions shall be eligible. 13 (b). Only recognized Association shall be eligible (c). Privileges/Transfer Protection shall be limited to only one member from each recognized Union/Association across state/zone/circle/division etc. and may be either president /secretary/any other nominee of the recognized union/association.” 19. Further, the learned counsel for the respondent Corporations also submitted that the very same transfer policy in respect of the privileges and transfer protection, issue came up before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in W.A. No.192 of 2019. 20. In this scenario, it is appropriate to note the Hon’ble Division Bench orders dated 29.10.2019 in W.A. No.192 of 2019 of this Court which attained finality. This court has gone through the same and the relevant paras in the above orders read as under:- “10.Since, it is the stand of the respondents that, adhering to the Instructions of the State Government issued vide G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 24.06.2019, and Circular Memorandum, dated 16.09.2014, and 27.09.2014 the benefit is being extended only to the recognized unions and associations, this Court absolutely does not find any discrimination in the said action. Admittedly, the issue pertains to transfers. 11.Having regard to the above reasons, this Court is neither persuaded nor inclined to interfere with the policy matter of the State Government which is sought to be assailed in all these Writ Petitions. However, it is open for the petitioners 14 herein to approach the concerned authorities by way of fresh written representations and for consideration of the same by the respondents strictly in accordance with law.” Consideration of the court: 21. Reverting to the instant batch of cases, the entire case of the writ petitioners/Associations seeking for protections/privileges is relating to the transfers and other incentives bestowed by the respondent Corporations authorities, under the cover to safe guard, the interests, welfare of the employees those are associated with their respective organisations. The petitioners also projected that the non-extension of protection/privileges on par with the recognized unions/associations leads to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. Whereas, arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent Corporations is that the transfer is an incidence of service of employee. In fact, the transfer policy aims to shift/adjust the employees in the suitable positions, by taking into consideration of their overall perceptions, etc. The policy of the transfer comes under the administrative ambit of the employer, why because, the employer alone is well acquainted with the work activities and abilities of their employees than anybody else. Thus, decision- 15 making in respect of transfers of their employees squarely falls to the arena of the employer only. 23. It is very true that transfers and postings are a normal incidence of service for every employee. The transfer of employees is part and parcel and fundamental routine administrative work. In fact, transfer is primarily aimed at ensuring the smooth functioning of institutions, also streamlining governance and also the administration of corporations to reach their tasks. 24. It is well settled legal principle, as clarified by a catena of judicial precedents by the Apex Court, that the authority to transfer employees falls within the exclusive domain of the employer so as to allow operational efficiency in the administrative path. Unless and until, it is shown from the record that the order of transfer is a direct outcome of malafide or extraneous considerations or contrary to the statutory provisions or employment guidelines, the Court should not interfere in such orders of transfer as held in N.K. Singh Vs. Union of India1;State of M.P. Vs. S.S. Kourav2; and recently in Pubi Lombi Vs. State of Arunachal Pradesh and others3. 1(1994) 6 SCC 98 2(1995) 3 SCC 270 32024 SCC online SC, 279 16 25. In fact, employee unions also play a vital role in safeguarding the interest of workers and ensuring their concerns are addressed. Recognizing this crucial function, the Trade Unions Act, 1926, had formally recognized the legitimacy of trade unions, granting them legal status and certain privileges in order to collectively bargain and represent employees. But, at the same time, this recognition does not extend the absolute immunity from transfers of its office bearers, as such an exemption would interfere with the employer’s right to manage its employees efficiently. 26. Another facet is that, due to the advent of information technology is paving the way to the interactions/meetings with the union representatives with its member employees are coming to closure. Thus, a mere distance of place is not at all a hurdle to the Unions/Associations to protect the best interests of the employees. 27. Now, the challenge for courts and adjudicating forums lies in striking a harmonious balance between the employer’s prerogative to administer the transfers and the employees’ legitimate expectations of fairness in espousing the voice of employees. In this context, none of the parties can be rendered remediless. Infact, Courts have consistently held that genuine grievances regarding 17 transfer orders should be addressed through appropriate administrative circles rather than the intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in Shilpi Bose Vs. State of Bihar4 held that:- “If the transfer order has been passed in violation of Government policy decision and Guide lines the High Court should not interfere with such an order and persons aggrieved can make representation before the authority concerned.” 28. The learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Vijay Kumar Saxena Vs. Dy. Director of Education5, while dealing with the transfer issue relating to the office bearer of the employees’ Association, had not interfered and also relegated him to approach the concerned authority for redressal. 29. This Court, in similar circumstances in W.P.No.21717 of 2016 and batch, in respect of transfer policy, after going through all the relevant aspects and G.Os, disposed of the writ petitions. 30. Though this court is conscious of the fact that the challenge is made in respect of transfers, relates to the old period, but as the issue involved is in perennial in nature. Added to that, from a plain reading of the counter, it appears that the respondent Corporations 41991 Supp (2) SCC 659 51993 SCC OnLine All 204 18 authorities, had shown inclusivity rather than the exclusivity, and also keeping in view the well settled legal principles referred to supra and the verdict dated 29.10.2019 in W.A. No.192 of 2019 of the Hon’ble Division Bench, this Court is inclined to dispose of the batch of writ petitions in the following manner: i. The writ petitioners are granted liberty to prefer fresh written representations with all particulars by duly enclosing the relevant documentary proofs to the competent authorities of the respondent corporations, within a period of four (4) weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ii. On such representations being made, within a period of six (6) weeks thereafter, the competent authority of the respondents shall dispose of the same by passing the speaking orders, in accordance with the law. The respondent authorities shall communicate copy of such orders to the petitioners. 31. With the above directions, all the writ petitions are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________ MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J Date:10.04.2025 Rns 19 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM WRIT PETITION Nos.19730 of 2016, 20540 of 2016, 20441 of 2017, 20863 of 2016, 20991 of 2016, 17606 of 2017 and 19227 of 2017 Date: 10.04.2025 Rns