Allowed

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik v. the General Manager

Karnataka HC27 Aug 2024WP/104524/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a permanent employee challenged an office order transferring him from one division to another against transfer policy and minimum tenure norms for Group-D employees. The High Court allowed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 10.07.2024 in No. PRA.VYA(AA)/LE(AA)/SA.LE(LE)/B37/SA2/2024-25/CYS-2492 stood quashed. Consequential Annexure-C rendered ineffective.

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik Vs the General Manager — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 104524 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V.HOSMANI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.104524 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI SATISH S/O. MAHADEV NAIK, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: STATION MECHANIC GRADE-II R/O: PRABATH NAGAR, KPTCL QUARTERS, TQ: HONNAVAR, DIST: U.K – 581 334.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI RAVI HEGDE & SRI VINAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE GENERAL MANAGER, ADMINISTRATION AND HUMAN

¶14

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 025.

¶15

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, P.B.ROAD, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD – 580 025.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE OFFICE MEMORANDUM DATED 10.07.2024 IN NO.PRA.VYA(AA)/LE(AA)/SA.LE(LE)/B37/SA2/2024-25/CYS-2492, ISSUED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT, APPROVED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

¶22

NC: 2024:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 104524 of 2024

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This writ petition is filed seeking for following reliefs:

¶25

A) Issue writ in the nature Of Certiorari to quash the Office Memorandum dated 10.07.2024 in No. PRA.VYA(AA)/LE (AA)/SA.LE(LE)/B37/SA-2/2024-25/CYS-2492, issued By the 1^st respondent, approved By the 2^nd respondent, vide ANNEXURE-B and

¶26

B) Issue any other writ or order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in circumstances of the case including the cost, in the ends of justice.

¶27

Sri Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner was submitted that, petitioner was a permanent employee of respondents-Corporation. From post of Station Attendant Grade-I, he was promoted as Station Mechanic Grade-II and posted to 33 K.V., Sub-Division, HESCOM at Kasargod on 01.01.2021. It was submitted, said SubDivision was within Sirsi Circle. As per transfer policy, a Group-D employee could not be transferred out side Division. It was further submitted, minimum tenure in case of Group-D employees was 7 years. Before completion of said period, impugned order dated 10.07.2024 as per Annexure-B was issued transferring petitioner to City Branch, O & M City Sub-Division no.2,

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 104524 of 2024

¶29

HESCOM, Belagavi. Said order was passed as if, it was on request of petitioner, though no such request was made.

¶30

On ground that impugned order was violative on both above counts, he sought for allowing writ petition.

¶31

On other hand Sri Shivaraj P.Mudhol, learned counsel for respondents opposed.

¶32

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶33

On 31.07.2024 directing panel counsel to

¶34

accept notice, he was directed to verify whether any request was made by petitioner. Till today, no statement of objections is filed nor any request made by petitioner placed on record.

¶35

Under such circumstances, contention of petitioner that impugned order was without any request would stand vindicated. In any case, fact that petitioner belongs to Group-D and before completion of whom minimum period of tenure i.e., 7 years and also on ground

¶36

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:12209 WP No. 104524 of 2024

¶37

that order of transfer is from one Division to another, in violation of transfer policy, petition deserves to succeed.

¶38

For said reasons, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 10.07.2024 at Annexure-B stands quashed. It is needless to state that, Annexure-C which is consequential to Annexure-B, would not survive

¶39

independently is also held to be rendered ineffective.

¶40

Sd/(RAVI V.HOSMANI) JUDGE

¶41

EM CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik v. the General Manager

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Satish S/O Mahadev Naik v. the General Manager

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. H Mallu Swami @ Mallikarjun H. Anantapur Vs Mr. Arun Kumar Agarwal

Smt. Manjula W/O Late Shashikant Bagi, Vs the Divisional Controller

Sri.Basavaraj.S.Patil Vs the Chief Executive Officer

Sharanabasayya Sudi Vs the State of Karnataka

The General Manager, Vs Imtiyaz Ahmed S/O. Abdul Ahmed Bellary

Smt Laxamavva W/O Shivappa Madar Vs Shivappa Madar S/O Mahadevappa