Disposed

Sri Pushyanth H M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2024WP/23537/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order of the State Administrative Tribunal which refused to stay a repatriation order, directing only consideration of a representation for accommodation. The High Court declined substantive interference at the interim stage but maintained status quo until the Tribunal's next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Status quo maintained regarding petitioner's posting and posting order until Tribunal's next hearing.

Sri Pushyanth H M Vs the State of Karnataka — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:34541-DB WP No. 23537 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 23537 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI PUSHYANTH H.M. S/O. H.R.MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WORKING AS DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, KIADB, NEXT TO SIT COLLEGE, ABOVE CANARA BANK, B.H.ROAD, TUMAKURU-572102.

¶12

Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

RESIDING AT NO. 45, SUDHA NILAYA, GOVERNMENT URDU SCHOOL MAIN ROAD, UPPARAHALLI, TUMAKURU-572136.

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA G. GAYATRI, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34541-DB WP No. 23537 of 2024

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD, 4^TH AND 5^TH FLOOR, EAST WING, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.08.2024 IN APPLICATION NO.4031/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, AND CONSEQUENTLY ISSUE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS PRAYED FOR IN THE APPLICATION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

¶26

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:34541-DB WP No. 23537 of 2024

¶27

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶30

and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶31

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging an order repatriating him from deputation to the KIADB without issuing any orders of posting. It is submitted that though the application was filed on 19.08.2024, the Tribunal had directed the Government Advocate to get instructions and listed the case on 04.09.2024. It is submitted that though a prayer for stay of the order dated 16.08.2024 had been made on the ground that the repatriation amounted to a premature transfer and that no posting has been shown to the petitioner and further that his wife was working in the same station, the Tribunal had only directed that, in case, the petitioner submits a representation seeking accommodation in the same station, the same should be considered in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:34541-DB WP No. 23537 of 2024

¶34

nobody else has been posted in his place and that at present, he has not been relieved from his present station.

¶35

3. Having considered the contentions advanced, we

¶36

are of the opinion that, since the writ petition is only at the stage of consideration of interim order for which the matter stands posted to 04.09.2024, interference by this Court would not be justified at this stage. However, in view of the submissions made on either side and in view of the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that he has not been relieved till now, it is ordered that status-quo as on today shall be maintained, till the matter is heard by the Tribunal on 04.09.2024 or till orders are passed by the Tribunal whichever is later.

¶37

Writ petition stands disposed accordingly.

¶38

Sd/(ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE

¶39

Sd/(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE

¶40

¶41

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Sri Pushyanth H M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pushyanth H M v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S New Prince Button Center Vs M/S Jasky Exports Private Limited

S.P.Velayutham Vs the Special Land Acquisition OFFICER-2

I B M India Private Limited (Substituted) Vs Mr Shreans Daga

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri. Govindappa M.K

Sri H M Basavaraju Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri K S Keerthikumar Vs the State of Karnataka