Dismissed

Sri Nataraj T L v. the Managing Director

Karnataka HC14 Feb 2024WP/3706/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition seeking to quash a transfer order issued to a petitioner employee of KSRTC. The court held that the transfer was based on administrative reasons, which fall outside the scope of transfer guidelines intended for other purposes, and rejected the contention that the order was premature or punitive.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; the petitioner was directed to join duties at the place of transfer after exhausting leave.

Sri Nataraj T L Vs the Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:6392 WP No. 3706 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.3706 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SRI NATARAJ T.L. S/O. LATE LAKSHMIKANTHAIAH T.L. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT MECHANICAL ENGINEER, UNIT MANAGER, TUMKUR UNIT-02, TUMKUR. RESIDING AT SRI KOTTURESHWARA NILAYA, 4^TH CROSS, C.B. LAYOUT, UPPARAHALLI, TUMKUR – 572102. ... PETITIONER

¶6

(BY SRI SHIVARAJ PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶7

AND:

¶8

Digitally signed by SHYAMALA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560027.

¶10

CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CENTRAL OFFICE, K.H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA, BENGALURU – 560027.

¶11

DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TUMKURU DIVISION, TUMKURU – 572702.

¶12

UNIT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,

¶13

¶14

NC: 2024:KHC:6392 WP No. 3706 of 2024

¶15

TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR UNIT–2, TUMKUR – 572702.

¶16

UNIT MANAGER KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR UNIT – 561203. ... RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER BEARING NO.KRAS/KEKE/SIBBANDI/C-1/171/1432/2023-24 DATED 23.01.2024 SHOWING GENERAL STAFF ORDER NO.G-10672 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER WHOSE NAME SHOWN IN SL. NO.3 IN THE TRANSFER ORDER AS PER ANNEXURE-E INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner assails the order dated 23.01.2024 showing general staff order No.G-10672, passed by respondent No.2 transferring the petitioner whose name shown in Sl.No.3 in the transfer order at Annexure - E.

¶22

The grievance of the petitioner is that his retirement is due in a very short period of eleven months and thus the respondent – management could not have passed the transfer order against the transfer guidelines of the KSRTC.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:6392 WP No. 3706 of 2024

¶25

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by respondent No.2 is premature transfer order transferring the petitioner to respondent No.5 unit without there being any rational or justifiable reason and the said order has been passed on the verge of his retirement i.e., a short period of one year which is highly erroneous and illegal.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – Corporation, in addition to reiterating various grounds urged in the statement of objections would contend that the transfer order of the petitioner was on the administrative reasons and the transfer of the petitioner to Doddaballapur Depot vide order dated 23.01.2024 is justified. It is also contended that the guidelines governing the transfer order is not applicable to the cases of transfer issued on administrative grounds which is evident from clause III(8) of transfer guidelines, the Circular No.1545 dated 29.04.2015. It is contended that the challenge made to the order of transfer as premature as he is in the verge of

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:6392 WP No. 3706 of 2024

¶29

retirement is untenable and hence, the petition has to be dismissed as devoid of merits.

¶30

Heard Sri Shivaraj Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Renuka H.R., learned counsel for the respondents and perused the entire material on record.

¶31

The petitioner was working as a Depot Manager at Tumkur Unit and was transferred to Doddaballapur vide order dated 23.01.2024 and the material on record, more particularly noting sheet of the file pertaining to the transfer of petitioner, which is placed by the Corporation along with memo makes it evident that the transfer is for an administrative reason and perusal of Clause III(8) of transfer guidelines indicate that the guidelines governing the transfer order is not applicable to the case of transfer for administrative reasons.

¶32

The administrative grounds can be put as the reason for transfer, so long as such administrative grounds do not affect the interest of the employee personally with civil consequences or such grounds do not attribute imputation on the character of the employee and if any of

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:6392 WP No. 3706 of 2024

¶34

these elements are apparent based on admitted facts, then such grounds can no longer be termed as administrative grounds and on perusal of facts of the instant case, it cannot be held that as punitive measure to achieve the collateral purpose, the order of transfer is passed. It is well settled law that the authorities are entitled to transfer on administrative grounds/public interest, and no transfer can be made when the same was passed in lieu of punishment or on extraneous reasons.

¶35

In the said circumstances, the petitioner seeking to challenge the order of transfer by respondent No.2, for the reasons stated supra is unsustainable and liable to be rejected.

¶36

However, it is needless to observe that the petitioner to join duties at the place of transfer after exhausting leave. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

Sri Nataraj T L v. the Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nataraj T L v. the Managing Director

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 Ramachandra T Vs Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation

The Printers (Mysore) Private Limited Vs Sri Prakash S

H.M.T. Karimikara Sangha Vs the Management of H.M.T. Ltd.

Executive Officer Vs Puttamma

Sri N Muniraju Vs M/S Mcnally Bharat Engineering Co.Ltd

Union Bank of India Vs Sri S N Balasubramanian