Allowed

Sri Narayanappa G R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Apr 2024WP/2080/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An executive engineer challenged his transfer notification as violating the transfer guidelines' clause protecting employees near retirement. The court found clause 9(a)(i) applicable to the petitioner nearing retirement, held the notification unsustainable, quashed it, allowed the petitioner to remain at Davanagere till retirement, and permitted respondent no.3 to continue at Ballari without fres

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri Narayanappa G R Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:13754 WP No. 2080 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2080 OF 2024 (S-TR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NARAYANAPPA G.R. S/O LATE GADDE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA DAVANGERE - 577 006.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY COMMERCE INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KHANIJA BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009.

¶14

SRI G.H. SRIDHAR EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:13754 WP No. 2080 of 2024

¶17

DEVELOPMENT BOARD, ZONAL OFFICE BALLARY, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583 101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT.B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA FOR R1 SRI. PRAVEEN G. ADAGATTI, ADV FOR R2, SMT.SIRI R. ADV. FOR R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS RELATING TO ISSUE OF IMPUGNED NOTIFICATION NO.CI 06 IAP (E) 2024 DTD 18.01.2024 ANNEXURE-D ISSUED BY THE R1 AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME, IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO TRANSFER AND POSTING OF R3 IS CONCERNED.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for respondent no.1 and learned counsels appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶24

Petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned transfer notification dated 18.01.2024 issued by the first respondent, is before this Court.

¶25

The short point which falls for consideration in this petition is, whether the impugned transfer notification transferring third respondent from KIADB Zonal Office, Ballari to KIADB Zonal Office, Davanagere in place of petitioner

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:13754 WP No. 2080 of 2024

¶28

without giving consequent posting to the petitioner, is sustainable in view of Clause 9(a)(i) of Transfer Guidelines/Govt.Order dated 7.6.2013 vide Annexure-C.

¶29

The said clause clearly stipulates that a person who is having tenure of only two years bfore his superannuation, shall not be transferred. In the present case on hand, it is stated that the petitioner is about to retire within a year and therefore said clause 9(a)(i) of transfer guidelines is aptly applicable to the petitioner.

¶30

The authorities, contrary to the protection given to the employees in terms of Clause 9(a)(i) of the said Transfer Guidelines, have passed the impugned notification. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the impugned transfer notification is not sustainable in law.

¶31

For the foregoing reasons, this Court is of the view that the impugned transfer notification requires to be set aside. It needs to be mentioned that, respondent no.3 is transferred to the petitioner's place i.e. to Davanagere from Ballari under the impugned transfer notification. Since this Court has decided to set aside the impugned transfer notification, third respondent

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:13754 WP No. 2080 of 2024

¶34

shall be permitted to resume work at Ballari without seeking fresh posting at the hands of concerned authorities.

¶35

For the foregoing reasons, this Court passes the

¶36

following:

¶37

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶38

(b) The impugned Transfer Notification dated 18.01.2024 vide Annexure-D is hereby quashed.

¶39

¶40

(d) Respondent No.3 shall be permitted to continue to serve in Ballari without insisting for fresh posting.

¶41

Sd/JUDGE

¶42

Sk/-

¶43

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Sri Narayanappa G R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri Narayanappa G R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri v Byrappa Vs Hmt Limited

M/S Multipak Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Deutsche Bank Ag

Sri Manjesh B S Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Shubha Sangeetha R, Mbbs, Md(Patho) Dnb Vs Director Cum Dean

Smt. N Kalpana, Vs the Chief Manager Bank of India

Mr. Vikram Prabhakar Vs LIC Housing Finance Ltd.