Allowed

Union of India v. Shri Dr Sunil Bhandekar

Karnataka HC30 Jul 2021WP/1378/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order preventing transfer of a Group-A employee during the COVID-19 lockdown. The High Court held no statutory ban existed on transfer and set aside the Tribunal's order.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal is set aside. 15 days' breathing time is granted for the respondent to join his post.

Union of India Vs Shri Dr Sunil Bhandekar — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1378/2021 (S-CAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

1 . UNION OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY MINISTRY OF FISHERIES, AH AND DIARYING KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI – 110 001

¶10

2 DIRECTOR CSFP & ITS HESARAGHATTA BENGALURU

¶11

...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI.D.BASAVARAJA, ADV.)

¶13

AND

¶14

SHRI (DR) SUNIL BHANDEKAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6 MONTHS S/O J.L. BHANDEKAR WORKING AS VETERINARY OFFICER/ HEAD OF OFFICE CENTRAL CATTLE BREEDING FARM HESARAGHATTA, BENGALURU - 560088 R/AT CCBF, HESARGHATTA BENGALURU - 560088

¶15

(BY SRI.R.VEERENDRA SHARMA, ADV.)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD

¶17

¶18

29.09.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH, BENGALURU IN OA NO.170/00326/2020 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The present petition is arising out of the order dated 29.09.2020 passed in OA No.170/00326/2020 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench (Dr.Sunil Bhandekar v. Union of India and another).

¶22

The facts of the case reveal that the respondentemployee before this Court was working at Central Cattle Breeding Farm (for short 'CCBF'), Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru from 25.04.2016 to 18.07.2020. An order was passed transferring him from CCBF, Hesaraghatta, Bengaluru to CCBF, Chiplima in the State of Odisha.

¶23

The undisputed facts of the case makes it very clear that the respondent-employee is governed by All India Transfer Policy. He holds Group 'A' post and he is a Senior Class-I officer. He came up before the Tribunal stating that he cannot proceed on transfer on account of COVID-19 Pandemic and the Government of India has directed the

¶24

¶25

Department not to transfer the respondent-employee during COVID-19 pandemic. It was also stated by him that as there was complete lockdown in the city of Bengaluru from 14.07.2020 to 22.07.2020, therefore no flights, trains or any other means of transport and therefore he was not able to travel to the place of his transfer as in the State of Odisha also there was a complete lockdown. It was also stated that he was having two minor children and aged parents. In those circumstances, an application has been preferred and the same has been allowed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the Union of India has straightaway drawn the attention of this Court to the guidelines issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, which are on record dated 29.06.2020 and the guidelines do not provide that an employee cannot be transferred by the employer. The Tribunal has placed heavy reliance upon the guidelines issued by the Government of India and has observed that action can be initiated against a person who is moving out from the place where there is a complete lock down.

¶27

¶28

This Court really fails to understand as to how the guidelines are applicable in the present case. The guidelines are applicable in the normal circumstances i.e., the guidelines provide restriction upon a common man in respect of movement during lockdown period. Transfer of IAS / IPS Officers, people from armed forces and other Department have taken place during COVID-19 pandemic. No statutory provision of law / executive instructions have been brought to the notice of this Court imposing complete ban of such transfer and therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has misdirected itself in giving erroneous interpretation of the guidelines issued by the Government of India. The respondent-employee has certainly completed his normal tenure at Bengaluru and therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court keeping in view administrative exigencies, the judgment delivered by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside.

¶29

At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has fairly stated before this Court that some breathing time may be granted to the employee in question to join to his transferred place.

¶30

¶31

Resultantly, 15 days time is granted to the respondentemployee to join at the transferred place from today.

¶32

With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside.

¶33

No order as to costs.

¶34

SD/JUDGE

¶35

SD/JUDGE

¶36

Union of India v. Shri Dr Sunil Bhandekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Shri Dr Sunil Bhandekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivamurthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

M/S Bata India Limited Vs State of Karnataka

M/S S K Construction Vs Shri Gajanan Malya

Hazrath Madar Shah Makan Vs the State Board of Wakf

Sri Sheshasai Rao Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Union of India Vs P Basavaraju