Allowed

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2021WP/3381/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging the transfer of an Assistant Executive Engineer and the appointment of a junior officer. The court held that transferring a retiring officer before tenure completion without valid reasons was erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The transfer order dated 01.01.2021 and the Tribunal's order dated 02.02.2021 were set aside. The petitioner was restored to his posting. The State was directed to hold annual DPCs for promotions.

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah Vs the State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.3381/2021 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN

¶9

SRI. C. K. KRISHNAIAH S/O LATE KUNTA SINGRIGOWDA, AGED AOUT 58 YEARS, 3 MONTHS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, O/O THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, PWD CIRCLE OFFICE, MYSORE R/AT NO 637, 27^TH MAIN ROAD, 15^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE D BLOCK, J P NAGAR, MYSORE 570028

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI VIJAYA RAGHAVA SARATHY, ADV.)

¶12

AND

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER RESOUCES, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001

¶14

2 . SRI.DHARANENDRAPPA ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WAITING FOR A POSTING BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER RESOURCES, VIKASASOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.

¶15

¶16

NOW POSTED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, O/O THE O/O THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER, PWD CIRCLE OFFICE, MYSORE 570001

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT.SHILPA S.GOGI, HCGP FOR R1 SRI.RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATHRI, ADV. FOR C/R2)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.48/2021 DATED 02.02.2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA. J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner before this Court was holding the substantive post of Assistant Executive Engineer and was posted at Mysore, preferred an application before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, being aggrieved by the transfer order dated 01.01.2021 transferring him out of Mysore that too without a posting in the middle of the academic year and by the same order, respondent No.2 before this Court was posted in place of the petitioner. The facts further reveal that the petitioner was posted to Mysore as an Assistant Executive Engineer on 22.10.2019 and he was reported to duty on 31.10.2019.

¶23

¶24

Undisputedly, the policy of transfer provides for a tenure of two years in respect of the Assistant Executive Engineer. The petitioner as he was being transferred without completion of two years period and as he is due for retirement on 31.10.2022 has preferred an application before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has dismissed the application preferred by him. The facts further reveal that the 2^nd respondent is not a regular Assistant Executive Engineer and the current charge has been conferred upon him under Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Services Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short). The petitioner who was given promotion to the post Assistant Executive Engineer by holding the DPC meeting, has been posted out of Mysore and a person, holding substantive lower rank, has been posted to the place of the petitioner.

¶25

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this Court that the petitioner is having four months to retire and he is holding the substantive post of an Assistant Executive Engineer, whereas the 2^nd respondent is holding the substantive post of Assistant Engineer only which is lower in rank to the post of

¶26

¶27

Assistant Executive Engineer and the petitioner has been transferred before the completion of the tenure as provided in the policy of transfer.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the 1^st respondent-State as well as learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent have argued that the 2^nd respondent was promoted under Rule 32 of the Rules and as he was holding the current charge, he was rightly transferred with due approval of the Hon'ble Chief Minister in the public interest and in the interest of administrative exigencies. It has also been argued that the transfer order was issued in accordance with the rules and no case for interference is made out by the petitioner.

¶29

This Court has carefully gone through the entire record and has also heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

¶30

Undisputedly, it is a fact that a person who is holding the substantive post of Assistant Executive Engineer is displaced by a person who is holding the substantive post of Assistant Engineer. Meaning thereby, a person, who is

¶31

¶32

lower in rank has been posted in place of a person who is higher in rank. The 2^nd Respondent might have been promoted under Rule 32 of the Rules, but the fact remains that he is holding the substantive post of Assistant Engineer. The other important aspect of the matter is that the petitioner has not completed the tenure of two years as provided under the transfer policy and he is due for retirement on 31.10.2022. In the considered opinion of this Court, there was no reason for transferring an employee who is due for retirement after 14 mont6hs. Therefore, the Tribunal has erred in law and facts in dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner.

¶33

It has been argued by the learned Government Advocate that the transfer order has been passed keeping in view the public interest and in the interest of administrative exigencies. Apart from making a vague and bald submission, no material has been placed on record by the State of Karnataka to demonstrate as to what is the public interest involved in shifting the petitioner prior to completion of the normal tenure provided in the transfer policy and no material has been brought on record to show the administrative

¶34

¶35

exigencies. This Court is of the opinion that in case a person has to be transferred prior to completion of the tenure as provided under the transfer policy, it can certainly be done for valid and cogent reasons. Resultantly the transfer order dated 01.01.2021 and the order passed by the tribunal 02.02.2021 are set aside.

¶36

Learned Counsel for the 2^nd respondent, at this stage, was fair enough in making the submission before this Court that the 2^nd respondent may be permitted to submit a representation to the State of Karnataka to post him in a place in Mysore or nearby Mysore as his wife is a doctor working in the Employees State Insurance Corporation, Mysore. The prayer appears to be a genuine prayer. In case such a representation is preferred within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, the State of Karnataka shall decide and pass the necessary orders within a period of thirty days thereafter, however, without disturbing the present petitioner from the present place of posting.

¶37

This Court has also witnessed similar circumstances in respect of promotion to the next higher posts under Rule

¶38

¶39

32 of the Rules. Every day, we are dealing with the cases of promotions which have been made under Rule 32 of the Rules. There are cases where the juniors are being promoted under Rule 32 of the Rules for the reasons best known to the State. There are few employees facing departmental enquiry and in whose cases the departmental enquiry is pending, are being promoted under Rule 32 of the Rules. It is true that the State of Karnataka has thus power to promote and place an officer by conferring charge but at the same time, the powers so exercised should not become arbitrary for the reasons best known to it.

¶40

The Recruitment Rules provide for holding the DPC every year. However this Court really fails to understand as to why the DPCs are not being held for years together and the promotions have been made under Rule 32 of the Rules. The respondent State shall ensure that the DPCs are held every year in respect of the promotions instead of promoting the persons, who are under cloud or who are otherwise not eligible for promotion, under Rule 32 of the Rules. The Registry of this Court is directed to place this order before the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka to ensure that

¶41

¶42

the DPCs are held for promotion in respect of the employees of the State of Karnataka instead of promoting them under Rule 32 of the Rules.

¶43

With the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. C. K. Krishnaiah v. the State of Karnataka

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

Mr Murtuza Hombal Vs Inspector General of Police

Sri. Naseerulla Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

Basavaraja Vs the Karnataka Public Service Commission

Sri. G. B. Manju Vs the State of Karnataka

Narasimha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Manjunatha H S Vs the State of Karnataka