Quashed

Jagadeesh Kumar P v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2023WP/1429/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a direction to issue a Movement Order to implement a valid Transfer Order. The Court quashed a subsequent order recalling the Transfer Order, citing lack of valid justifications by an elected representative, and directed the issuance of the Movement Order.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to issue the Movement Order to the petitioner forthwith on receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Jagadeesh Kumar P Vs the Karnataka Power… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 1429 OF 2023 (S-TR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

JAGADEESH KUMAR P S/O PURYA NAIK T AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.5, AE/JE TYPE KPTCL QUARTERS 4^TH CROSS, 9^TH C MAIN HRBR 1^ST BLOCK, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU 560043.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NARASIMHA MURTHY VANAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED ANANDA RAO CIRCLE REPTD. BY ITS DIRECTOR A AND HR.

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER (ELE) BESCOM, R/O NO.5, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMA NAGAR 3^RD FLOOR, SRI ARAVIND BHAVAN BANGALORE 560009.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. A. CHANDRACHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. PADMA S UTTUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶18

¶19

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO ISSUE CONSEQUENTIAL POSTING/MOVEMENT ORDER PURSUANT TO TRANSFER ORDER DATED 03.01.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ISSUED BY THE R2 IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AT SERIAL NO.18 AND ALSO IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS REPRESENTATION DATED 12.01.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-E FORTH WITH.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner who, as it appears from the circumstances of the case, was happy with the “ Transfer Order ” dated 03.01.2023, has filed this petition for a direction to the second respondent to issue “ Movement Order ” to give effect to the said “Transfer Order” . This Court, on 25.01.2023 recording the question that will have to be considered in the petition viz., whether there must be a direction to the concerned to issue “Movement Order” consequent to “Transfer Order” dated 03.01.2023 , has called upon the learned standing Counsels for the respondents to take notice and to respond to the question.

¶24

¶25

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶26

The petition is called on certain dates after on 25.01.2023, and the petitioner has presently filed the application [I.A. No.1/2023] for directions to the first respondent to withdraw the Order dated 02.02.2023 [which is now produced as Annexure-F appended to the application] and for directions to give effect to the “Transfer Order” dated 03.01.2023. The order dated 02.02.2023 is issued recalling the petitioner’s transfer which would not, as canvassed, inure to the advantage of another employee, and the relevant part reads as under:

¶27

“�ಾನ� ಇಂಧನ ಸ�ವರು ರವರು ಉ�ೆ�ೕಖ-1 ರ��, ��ೕ.ಬಸವ�ಾಜು.ಎ�.ಎ�. �.ಇಂ(�), �ೊಡ"ಗು$% ಘಟಕ, )ಾಯ+ ಮತು. /ಾಲ1ಾ ಉಪ�3ಾಗ, 4ೆ�ಕಂ, ಆವಲಹ78 ಇ�� 9ಾ� ಕತ+ವ� :ವ+;ಸು<.ರುವ ಸ=ಳದ��@ೕ ಮುಂದುವ�ೆಸಲು ಸೂ�Aರುವ ;ನB�ೆಯ�� C1ಾಂಕ: 03.01.2023 ರ ಆ�ೇಶದ��, ��ೕ.ಜಗCೕE ಕು�ಾF G. �.ಇಂ(�) 9ಾಗೂ ��ೕ.ಬಸವ�ಾಜು JZï.J¯ï. �.ಇಂ(�) ರವರುಗಳ ವIಾ+ವJೆಯನುB ತKಣCಂದ MಾNIೆ ಬರುವಂOೆ ರದುPIೊ7ಸ�ಾQ�ೆ . ಇನೂB ಆದಂOೆ , C1ಾಂಕ: 03.01.2022 ರ ಆ�ೇಶದ�� RಾವS�ೇ ಬದ�ಾವJೆ ಇರುವSCಲ�”.

¶28

¶29

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶30

Sri. D R Ravishankar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the present case where the “Transfer Order” dated 02.02.2023 is issued without giving effect to the transfer is an umpteenth example of similar circumstance where the Transfer Orders are issued but Movement Orders are not issued for various period of time and within which period, either because of the political intervention or otherwise, the orders are recalled and in this regard, he refers to the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petition in W.P. Nos.8952/2021 connected with W.P. No.5399/2021.

¶31

Sri. A Chandrachud, the learned counsel for the first respondent, and Smt. Padma S Uttur, the learned counsel for the second respondent, are heard, and of course, this Court must record Smt. Padma S Uttur’s submission that she has not been served with the copies of the petition and she is

¶32

¶33

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶34

served only with the copies of the application [I.A. No.1/2023]. However, the petition is disposed of in the light of the fact that the petitioner’s grievance is essentially reflected in the two orders passed by the first respondent viz., “ Transfer Order” dated 03.01.2023 and the next Order dated 02.02.2023 recalling the “ Transfer Order”.

¶35

Sri. A Chandrachud is unable to bring on record any circumstances that would justify the failure to give effect to the “ Transfer Order” dated 03.01.2023 except what is stated in the cancellation Order dated 02.02.2023. Further, it is trite that the Courts will not interfere with the orders of transfer only because it is at the instance of an elected representative, but it is also salient that appropriate circumstances that justify intervention by an elected representative must be brought out especially in the light of the transfer guidelines that prevail.

¶36

¶37

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶38

6. If the “ Transfer Orders” are issued and

¶39

they are not even implemented, it could have the effect of nullifying the safeguards provided in the transfer guidelines and the purpose for which these guidelines are issued. If there are reasons for cancellation of the “Transfer Order” , those have to be considered in the backdrop of the Guidelines that are issued and cannot be otherwise. In the present case the cancellation of the “ Transfer Order” is at the instance of an elected representative/Minister but without reasons. Therefore, the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

[a] The petition stands disposed of, quashing the order dated 02.02.2023 and directing the second respondent to issue “Movement Order” to the petitioner forthwith on receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶42

¶43

WP No. 1429 of 2023

¶44

[b] It would be needless to observe that

¶45

if circumstances justify any transfer of the petitioner before general transfers or otherwise, the respondents would be at liberty to take appropriate decision but on due adherence to the terms of the Transfer Guidelines lest there is another round of litigation.

¶46

[c] The learned counsel for the respondents are permitted to file memo of appearance/ vakalath within a week from today with the registry.

¶47

The pending applications stand disposed of by this order.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

AN/-

Jagadeesh Kumar P v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagadeesh Kumar P v. the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Shawar Pasha Vs the Superintendent

Aramanamada Biddappa Krishna Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre

Primary Agricultural Credit Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

Smt Kalavathi Sattenahalli Rame Gowda Swamy Vs the Assistant Director of Income Tax

Suhel Khan Vs Assessment Unit

Marinanjappa Shivananda Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)