Sri Nandish Kumar S a Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:37254 WP No. 26025 of 2025

¶2

1 -

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26025 OF 2025 (S-TR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NANDISH KUMAR S A S/O. ANNAJI GOWDA K. T AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS WORKING AS JUNIOR ASSISTANT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BIDADI SUB DIVISION, BIDADI 562109

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ADITHYA R CHAKRAGIRI., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION LIMITED REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR CAUVERY BHAVAN, K. G. ROAD BENGALURU 560 001.

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA A Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA

¶14

BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED BIDADI SUB DIVISION, BIDADI 562 109.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SMT. GIRIJA PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:37254 WP No. 26025 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DATED 19.08.2025 (ANNEXURE-C) AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of

¶26

the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 19.08.2025 vide Annexure-C, passed by the third respondent, whereby, the petitioner has been given additional charge as a General Cashier.

¶27

The petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Line man in the year 2007. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Junior Assistant in the year 2013. When he was working as a Junior Assistant at Sub-Division No.5, Bidadi, since one Ramesh R. was transferred from the place, by the impugned order, the petitioner was placed in additional charge as a General Cashier. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following contentions:

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:37254 WP No. 26025 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

(i) Firstly, the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant, the General Cashier post is a higher post and the third respondent is not the competent authority to entrust the work to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order vide Annexure-C is unsustainable.

¶32

(ii) Secondly, there are other Assistants working in the office, i.e., one Pavithra. Instead of giving in-charge to Pavithra, even though the petitioner is junior to her, he has been posted as in-charge.

¶33

(iii) Lastly, the additional charge given to the petitioner is without any additional charge allowance. Hence, he sought to allow the writ petition.

¶34

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 has filed statement of objections and raised the following contentions:

¶35

(i) Firstly, as per Work Allocation Circular issued by the Corporation, the Senior Officer in that Sub-Division is the competent officer to allocate the work in the interest of the Corporation. The Assistant Executive Engineer, who

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:37254 WP No. 26025 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

has passed the order is the Senior Officer in the SubDivision, Bidadi and he is the competent authority to reallocate the work.

¶39

(ii) Secondly, Smt.Pavithra who is Senior to the petitioner is on medical leave and the petitioner is the senior most person available in the Sub-Division. Hence, he has been given charge as a General Cashier for a temporary period till regular employee is posted to that place. Hence she sought to dismiss the petition.

¶40

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the petition papers.

¶41

It is not in dispute that the petitioner is working as a Junior Assistant in the Sub-Division, Bidadi. It is also not in dispute that one Ramesh, working as a General Cashier has been transferred. The post of the General Cashier in Bidadi Sub-Division has been vacant. The petitioner, who is the next senior most Junior Assistant available in that office has been given in charge as a General Cashier for a temporary period till that post is filled up, as per the Work

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:37254 WP No. 26025 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

Allocation Circular produced by the respondents. The Assistant Executive Engineer is the Senior Officer in that Sub-Division and he has passed the impugned order vide Annexure-C, giving charge to the petitioner as a General Cashier, since the post of General Cashier was vacant due to transfer of one Ramesh. It is only a temporary arrangement made for the interest of the Corporation. Therefore, there is no illegality or error in the order passed by the respondents.

¶45

The writ petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶46

In view of disposal of the petition, all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶47

Sd/(H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD) JUDGE

¶48

CM

¶49

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34

Sri Nandish Kumar S a v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Nandish Kumar S a v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Netravathi M.S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.Ramesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Rajeshwari. C Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahadeva Vs State of Karnataka

Sri N Jagadesha Vs the Managing Director

Smt. N. R. Geetha Vs the State of Karnataka