The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the administrative order treating a period of non-joining duty following a transfer without a stay as Dies Non.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14427 WP No. 102331 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 102331 OF 2017 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
C. UMAMAHESHWAR S/O C. SHANKARAPPA AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC. ASSITANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (RTD), R/O. VIDYANAGAR, ‘C’ BLOCK, 10TH CROSS, HARIHAR-577601, DAVANGERE DIST.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S. H. MITTALKOD, ADVOCATE)
AND:
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
…RESPONDENTS
Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.13 11:15:14 +0530
(BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADV. FOR R1 NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-M MEMO BEARING NO. KPTCL/B58/5143/2014-15 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 15-06-2015 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. Annexure-M, the order dated 15.06.2015, is called in question. In terms of the said order, the period from 24.07.2014 to 22.01.2015 is considered as Dies-Non as far as the present petitioner who was earlier working under the Gulbarga Electric Supply Company. Certain other facts which are relevant can be noticed are as under.
The petitioner was transferred from KPTCL to GESCOM vide order dated 25.06.2012.
On 25.07.2014 pursuant to the transfer order, the petitioner handed over the charge to the person who is transferred to his place. Thereafter on 22.01.2015, the petitioner was transferred to HESCOM, Savanaur and on 23.01.2015, the petitioner reported to duty at Savanaur. On 27.02.2015, the petitioner made representation to treat the period from 24.07.2014 to 23.01.2015 as a compulsory waiting period and to sanction all the amendment. The said request was rejected. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed a petition to set aside the aforementioned order treating the aforementioned period as Dies Non.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14427 WP No. 102331 of 2017
The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of transfer from KPTCL to GESCOM is contrary to the transfer of guidelines as petitioner could not have been transferred within two years from the date of previous transfer as he was about to retire in two years from the said date. He would also content that the authorities have not considered the representation made by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respondent Sri. B S. Kamate, would contend that the order is in accordance with the applicable Rules and Regulations applicable to the employees. He would contend that the petitioner did not join the duty to the place where he was transferred till 23.01.2015 though the order of transfer was made on 25.07.2014. He would further submit that there was no stay order staying the operation of the order of transfer.
This Court has considered the contention raised at the bar.
Under the service law applicable to the employee, once the employee is transferred from one place to another, the obligation is on the part of the employee to join to the place where he was transferred. If aggrieved by the order of transfer, the employee has to seek appropriate remedy available under the law. In case, the order of transfer is stayed
then there is no obligation on the part of the employee who was transferred to report and join the duty at the place of transfer. However, in this case admittedly there was no such order staying the operation of transfer.
Under these circumstances the request of the petitioner to treat the period between 24.07.2014 to 23.01.2015 as a period of compulsory waiting cannot be considered as he was shown the posting in terms of the transfer order. Under this circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality in the order at Annexure-M which has treated the period from 24.07.2014 to 22.01.2015 as Dies Non.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
However, it is made clear that the dismissal of this petition should not come in the way of petitioner getting other service benefits as per the terms of employment.
Sd/JUDGE
PMP/List No.: 2 Sl No.:
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a period of non-joining duty without a stay order on transfer can be treated as a compulsory waiting period or Dies Non.
Whether the order treating the transfer period as Dies Non is illegal or contrary to applicable service rules.
Whether the authorities were obligated to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the waiting period.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
C. UMAMAHESHWAR
THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION & HRD) KARNATAKA VIDYUT PRASARA NIGAM
THE GENERAL MANGER, ADMINISTRATION & HRD, GULBARGA ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
