Allowed

The Commissioner v. Sri C Narayanaswamy

Karnataka HC7 Nov 2024WP/21486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

BBMP challenged a Tribunal order that had set aside repatriation of an Assistant Director on deputation from PWD back to his parent department. The High Court held deputation confers no right to continue till retirement and quashed the Tribunal's order, directing return to parent department.

What did the court decide?

Writ of certiorari issued quashing the Tribunal's order dated 19.06.2024; first respondent directed to go back to parent department forthwith; costs made easy.

The Commissioner Vs Sri C Narayanaswamy — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 21486 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (ADMINISTRATION) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR TOWN PLANNING (WEST) BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE ASSISTANT REVENUE OFFICER MATTIKERE SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU, MATTIKERE-560 054.

¶14

(BY SRI. SANJEEV B L.,ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

SRI. C NARAYANASWAMY, S/O LATE M CHINNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF TOWN PLANNING, WEST ZONE, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU. R/AT NO.687, 3^RD MAIN, NEXT GOVT. COLLEGE, TANK ROAD, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560 036.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.L SRINIVASA BABU.,ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR/R1, *SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R2 )

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2024 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 1889/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND B) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/s THAT THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶25

¶26

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C M JOSHI

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶29

Commissioner of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara

¶30

Palike and other sub-ordinate officers are invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the order dated 19.06.2024, whereby, the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, having allowed 1^st respondent’s Application No.1889/2024, has set aside the order dated

¶31

*Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.12.2024

¶32

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶33

6.5.2024 issued by the 2^nd petitioner herein and as a consequence, he is permitted to continue in the service of petitioner-Corporation on deputation basis.

¶34

Learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently argues that the respondentemployee belongs to the Parent Department of PWD in the Government of Karnataka and his services were borrowed

¶35

by the Corporation on deputation vide order dated 10.02.2023; there being some complaints against him, the Corporation has repatriated him to the Parent Department vide order dated 6.5.2024; deputation being a temporary arrangement, the deputationist does not have right of lien to any post in the Corporation and therefore, the Tribunal is not justified in quashing the repatriation, regardless of truthfulness of complaint or otherwise.

¶36

Learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent vehemently opposes the petition contending that the deputation is a tripartite arrangement for a specified period and therefore, borrowing department cannot

¶37

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶38

unilaterally repatriate the deputationist to the Parent Department on the unfounded allegations/complaints. The counsel further submits that cogent reasons having been assigned by the Service Tribunal, this court should not grant interference in the matter. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Petition Papers, we are inclined to grant indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the submission of learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners. True it is that in public employment, deputation is a tripartite arrangement involving the lender, the borrower and the subject employee. However, that does not mean that the employee has an indefeasible right to cling on to the borrowing department eternally. Where a period is specified for the deputation, ordinarily it cannot be cut-short by one of the parties without taking the others into confidence. It has not been demonstrated by the contesting respondent that the lending authority has

¶40

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶41

objected to repatriation or that even otherwise, he has got

¶42

right to continue on deputation as long as he wants.

¶43

In public employment, several factors enter the fray of the decision of deputation and so also, of repatriation. No deputationist can insist that he should be permitted to retire in the borrowing department wherein, he has been on deputation merely because he has a short stint of service and he would be retiring before long i.e., four months in this case. It is always desirable that an employee on deputation should demit his office in the Parent Department on attaining the age of superannuation. Otherwise, unnecessarily complications in securing the Service Records and sanctioning of terminal benefits such as pension, DCRG, etc., would crop up and all stakeholders would be put to prejudice.

¶44

There is one more aspect of justice: It is not that the petitioner herein has been put to prejudice by the efflux of deputation period. Apparently, his lien is in the Parent Department, whichever be the post. He is an alien to the

¶45

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶46

borrowing department, which is under no obligation to continue the deputation indefinitely. There is no justiciable assurance in the arrangement of deputation that an employee should be continued on deputation till after he attains the age of retirement. The Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA vs. R.THIYAGARAJAN¹ has reiterated its

¶47

earlier view:

¶48

“Deputation can be aptly described as an assignment of an employee (commonly referred to as the deputationist) of one department or cadre or even an organisation (commonly referred to as the parent department or lending authority) to another department or cadre or organisation (commonly referred to as the borrowing authority). The necessity for sending on deputation arises in public interest to meet the exigencies of public service. The concept of deputation is consensual and involves a voluntary decision of the employer to lend the services of his employee and a corresponding acceptance of such services by the borrowing employer. It also involves the consent of the employee to go on deputation or not...”

¶49

No Rule or Ruling to the contra is cited before us.

¶50

1 2020 SCC OnLine SC 349

¶51

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶52

The Tribunal ought to have approached the matter in the light of this decision; further, the Tribunal approximated deputation to transfer when there are differential nuances between them. Therefore, the impugned order is vulnerable for challenge.

¶53

The last contention of the respondent-employee that the allegations on which his deputation is cut-short have not been substantiated, do not merit deeper examination. The contention of counsel for the respondent-employee that the complaint itself has been withdrawn by the complainant-Smt.Bimla Devi Bothra subsequently, is of no avail. It is only a subsequent development which gives scope for some suspicion. Much is not necessary to specify. It is not that by virtue of repatriation order, any stigma is attached to him in the Service Records. We make it abundantly clear that the arguable stigmatic version in the repatriation order being confined to repatriation, would not enter his Service Records.

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:44826-DB WP No. 21486 of 2024

¶55

¶56

In the above circumstances, this petition succeeds; Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the Tribunal. As a consequence, the first respondent is liable to go back to the Parent Department, forthwith. The 2^nd respondent-Government shall issue appropriate orders

¶57

in this regard.

¶58

Costs made easy.

¶59

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(C M JOSHI) JUDGE

¶61

Bsv/cbc List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

The Commissioner v. Sri C Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner v. Sri C Narayanaswamy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Anandappa K v

Smt. M Rekha Vs the Union of India

Smt Saraswathi v Vs Sri Prakash

Sri Kumara Naika Vs Sri Rajakumar D

Channaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri Karthik Suvarna Vs G S Puttaswamy