Sri P a Makhadoom Vs the Director General and — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri P a Makhadoom Vs the Director General and — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2020 in Application No.11366/2016 quashed; consequently Application No.11366/2016 allowed and the endorsements dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-A9), 27.05.2016 (Annexure-A12) and 28.10.2016 (Annexure-A14) issued by the 1st respondent quashed; respondents directed to treat 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 as duty period and pay salary and other allowances with interest admissible from the date it becomes due till realization; respondents to pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the applicant within four weeks, failing which the Registry is to issue a certificate treating the cost as arrears and recover it from the responsible officials and release it to the applicant.

¶ORDER clause iv

Issue for consideration

Whether the period from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015, during which the applicant was kept out of service despite the Tribunal's interim order continuing him in his post, is to be treated as duty period with payment of salary and allowances (with interest). +1 more

Court's answer

The respondent-authorities are responsible for the applicant not being permitted to work from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015; the transfer order stood stayed with a specific direction to continue the applicant, yet it was neither honoured nor steps taken to vacate it despite persistent requests, showing lack of respect for orders of courts; their inaction is unsustainable and highly condemnable.

Ratio / Principle

No fault is found with the applicant for not attending work during the said period; the period 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 is to be treated as duty period as contended by the applicant.

Key takeaways

The period spent from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 being treated as duty, the applicant is entitled to salary and other allowances besides interest on the said amount as per the Government circular prevailing on the date when it became due, till the same is paid.ratio¶24
The failure of the respondent-authorities to attend to the applicant's request at the earliest drove him into an unnecessary legal battle causing mental agony and financial loss, which is to be compensated by ordering exemplary cost on the officials responsible for not considering his case at the earliest.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench order (authored by T.M. Nadaf J; bench comprising B M Shyam Prasad and T.M. Nadaf JJ), High Court of Karnataka, 06.11.2025, WP 9198/2021 (S-KSAT) under Articles 226 and 227: petitioner P.A Makhadoom, Assistant Administrative Officer, unsuccessfully applicant before the KSAT, challenged the Tribunal's order dated 13.10.2020 in Application No.11366/2016 dismissing his claim for salary for the period 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015. His transfer dated 24.06.2015 to Chamarajanagar had been stayed by the Tribunal's interim order dated 06.07.2015 (Application No.5963/2015) with a specific direction to continue him as Assistant Administrative Officer with the ADGP, State Intelligence; the authorities neither honoured the interim order nor permitted him to join despite representations and contempt proceedings (CTA.No.178/2015); the State's writ petition WP.No.42508/2015(S-KAT) against the interim order was disposed of on 08.10.2015; Application No.5963/2015 was allowed on 16.10.2015 quashing the transfer; the applicant joined the 4th Battalion KSRP on 05.11.2015 following the order dated 04.11.2015. Endorsements dated 23.02.2016, 27.05.2016 and 28.10.2016 refused to treat the period as duty. Held: the authorities are responsible for the applicant not working during the period; their inaction is unsustainable and highly condemnable; no fault attaches to the applicant; the period is to be treated as duty period; the applicant is entitled to salary and allowances with interest as per the Government circular prevailing when the amount fell due, till paid; exemplary cost of Rs.50,000/- is imposed on the respondents, payable within four weeks, failing which the Registry is to certify and recover it from the responsible officials for release to the applicant. Petition allowed; the Tribunal's order and the endorsements stand quashed.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

WRIT PETITION NO. 9198 OF 2021 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P.A MAKHADOOM AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O.LATE MIR AHMED SHAREEF, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, O/O COMMANDANT 4^TH BATTALION KSRP, BENGALURU-560 034.

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

PRESENTLY R/AT NO.25, 1ST MAIN, 11TH CROSS, SAINAGAR, 2ND PHASE, CHIKKABETTAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 097.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. PRABHU GOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE STATE INTELLIGENCE,

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. V.SHIVU REDDY, AGA)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO: i) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.10.2020, PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.11366/2016 BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. ii).DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO TREAT THE PERIOD FROM 27.06.2015 TO 04.11.2015, AS A DUTY PERIOD OF THE PETITIONER AND PAY THE SALARY TO THE PETITIONER WITH INTEREST AS DEEMS TO ORDER BY THIS HONBLE COURT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M. NADAF)

The unsuccessful applicant is before this Court

under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India calling in question order dated 13.10.2020 in Application.No.11366/2016, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’, for short), dismissing the application.

The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

A brief outline of facts leading to the filing

of the present petition are as under:-

As per applicant:

The applicant while working with State

Intelligence Office, Bengaluru, is issued with a Notification dated 23.06.2015 transferring to the office of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Traffic East Division, Bangalore City. Within a span of one day

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

i.e., on 24.06.2015 the order of transfer was modified, transferring the applicant to the District Police Office, Chamarajanagar and placing one M.Lambodaraiah in place of the applicant.

Aggrieved by the modified order, on the premise of premature transfer, the applicant approached the Tribunal in application No.5963/2015. The Tribunal granted an interim order on 06.07.2015 for a period of three months, staying the order of transfer dated 24.06.2015 and directed the respondents to continue the applicant as Assistant Administrative Officer, in the office of the ADGP, State Intelligence, Bengaluru, with a specific direction that if the third respondent therein had already taken charge he shall hand over charge to the applicant forthwith.

The applicant immediately after the interim order approached the respondents and requested them to take him to duty at State

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

Intelligence Office, his request was not considered and he had made a representation again on 19.08.2015. As his case was not considered by the respondents he filed a contempt for disobedience of interim order granted by the Tribunal, in CTA.No.178/2015.

In the interregnum, the respondent-

authorities declined to permit the applicant to join the posting on 19.05.2015, on the premise that they would challenge the interim order dated 06.07.2015. A writ petition in WP.No.42508/2015(S-KAT) was

filed seeking to quash the order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Tribunal. The petition was disposed of on 08.10.2015 directing the Tribunal for speedy disposal of the application.

During pendency of the contempt case,

the application No.5963/2015 comes to be allowed on 16.10.2015 quashing the transfer order dated 24.06.2015. In the order the Tribunal has observed

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

that the applicant shall be continued in the same post with ADGP, State Intelligence Bengaluru. Further, ordered that if the State feels that the applicant is to be shifted from the State Intelligence, Bengaluru, in view of pending enquiry they are at liberty to post him to any vacant post at Bengaluru.

In consonance with the order passed by the Tribunal the respondent-authorities passed an order on 04.11.2015 modifying the transfer order of the applicant from Chamarjanagar to Commandant, 4^th Battalion, KSRP, Bengaluru.

The applicant in terms of the order dated 03.11.2015 reported to the duty with KSRP, Bengaluru (supra) on 05.11.2015.

The applicant was kept out of service from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015, despite there being an interim order to continue in the said post which was within the knowledge of respondent-authorities.

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

The applicant made representation with

the respondent-authorities to treat the period from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 as duty period and pay the salary and other allowances to which he is legally entitled to.

The respondent-authorities issued endorsement dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure-A9), 27.05.2016 (Annexure-A12) and 28.10.2016 (Annexure-A14), turning down the request of the applicant. The applicant called in question the endorsements in application No.11366/2016.

Before the Tribunal, the applicant has

contended that the order of transfer was called in question before the Tribunal in application No.5963/2015. The Tribunal upon considering the materials placed on record, at the first instance granted an interim order directing to continue the applicant in the same post. However, the applicant

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

was not taken on duty on the premise that the authorities would challenge the same before this Court. However, the order passed by the Tribunal was in force till the disposal of the application so also the writ petition filed calling in question the said interim order.

The applicant was unjustifiably kept out

of service for the time from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015, which is attributable on the part of respondent-authorities, without there being any fault found with the applicant. Accordingly, sought to allow the application and quash the endorsements impugned, and issue direction to the respondents to treat the period from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 as duty period and to pay him the salary and all other allowances to which he is legally entitled to, with interest at 12% p.a.

On notice the respondent-authorities have appeared and filed the statement of objections

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

opposing the application. It was contended before the Tribunal that the applicant had not reported for duty with ADGP, State Intelligence, Bengaluru, nor any transferred place. As such, the period spent be treated as absence and cannot be considered as duty for payment of any salary and other allowances.

It was further contended that the applicant was not without posting, as such the question of applicant waiting for posting does not hold any water. The respondent-authorities immediately after receipt of the interim order filed application seeking for vacating interim order of stay. In the meanwhile, the applicant moved contempt before the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed calling in question the interim order granted, the same was disposed of directing the Tribunal not to extend the interim order granted on 06.07.2015, any further and to dispose of the matter expeditiously. The Tribunal thereafter disposed of the matter reserving liberty to

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

the respondent-authorities to transfer the applicant to any vacant post at Bengaluru, in view of pending enquiry. As such, there is no flaw in the endorsement issued and the applicant is not entitled for any relief sought in the application, and sought to dismiss the application.

The Tribunal upon consideration of the pleadings urged and arguments made, however, held that the applicant who has failed to report for duty to the transferred place is not entitled for any relief claimed in the application, accordingly dismissed the application. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this petition.

Heard Sri. Prabhu Gouda B. Thumbagi,

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

Sri. Prabhu Gouda B.Thumbagi, learned counsel reiterating the grounds taken in the application submitted that it is for the reluctance of the authority in not permitting him to join the duty, the applicant has not discharged the duty during the period (stated supra) there is no fault attributable to the applicant. The order of transfer was under challenge and the interim order was granted, with a specific direction to continue the applicant in the same post. However, he was not permitted to join, despite several representations. The interim order was almost in force till disposal of the application by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation. The Tribunal has not at all considered these material facts placed before it by way of annexure. In the circumstances, the order requires interference at the hands of this Court.

12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

21. This Court upon hearing Sri. Prabhu

Gouda B.Thumbagi, learned counsel on 16.10.2015 passed the following order:

”Upon hearing Mr. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is called upon to accept notice for the respondents and secure instructions for final disposal of the petition in the light of the petitioner's case [a] that he was not permitted to report to duty in terms of the interim order granted by the Tribunal in his application on 06.07.2015, [b] that he had to file contempt application, and [c] that no notice or movement orders were issued even as of the date of the final orders of the Tribunal.

The office is directed to respondent-list this petition on 30.10.2025.”

On query Sri. V.Shiva Reddy, learned

Additional Government Advocate, reiterating the very same contentions taken before the Tribunal not placed any materials nor stated any worthwhile in satisfaction to the points ordered vide order dated 16.10.2025. At point No.C, this Court in specific terms directed the learned Additional Government

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

Advocate to secure instructions regarding any notice/movement orders were issued even as of the date of final order of the Tribunal. Nothing is placed

before us to substantiate the contentions of the respondent authorities.

We are ruled by the ‘Rule of Law’ and not on ‘Might is Right’. There was an order of transfer which was stayed with a specific direction to continue the applicant to the posting. Neither, the same was honored nor any steps taken to vacate the order, despite persistent requests made by the applicant to report to duty, he was not permitted to join. This clearly shows lacks of respect by the respondentauthorities to the orders passed by the Court of law. The inaction on the part of respondent-authorities are unsustainable besides highly condemnable. In these circumstances, the authorities are responsible in not permitting the applicant to work from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015. We don’t find any fault

14 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

with the applicant in not attending with the work

during the period (stated supra). In the

circumstances, the same be treated as duty period as contented by the applicant.

Having considered that the period spent from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 on duty the applicant is entitled for salary and other allowances besides interest on the said amount as per the Government circular prevailing on the date when it has become due till the same is paid.

The applicant due to the inaction the applicant was made to approach the Tribunal once in contempt and another in the writ petition. So also, the applicant was made to approach the Tribunal again wherein he has tasted failure and again approached this Court. Applicant a septuagenarian is made to run from pillar to post for the right he is legally entitled to, which makes us to hold that, it is the respondent-authorities failure to attend the

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

request of the applicant at the earliest, driven the applicant in this unnecessary legal battle causing mental agony besides financial loss, which be compensated by ordering exemplary cost on the part of the officials responsible in not considering the case of the applicant at the earliest. A fault or ignorance is pardonable, but not the one with knowledge causing harm to other, but still embarking on the same is condemnable. For the foregoing reasons petition favours the applicant and we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) Petition is allowed . ii) Order dated 13.10.2020 in application No.11366/2015 passed by Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bengaluru is quashed.

iii) Consequently the application No.11366/2015 is allowed quashing the endorsements dated 23.02.2015

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

HC-KAR

(Annexure-A9), dated 27.05.2016 (Annexure-A12) and dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure-A14) issued by 1^st respondent.

iv) The respondents are directed to treat the period from 27.06.2015 to 04.11.2015 as duty period and admit the applicant for salary and other allowances to which he is legally entitled to along with interest admissible as on the date it becomes due till realization.

v) The respondents shall pay cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only) to the applicant within four weeks for the unnecessary legal battle he was engaged with, within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Failing which, registry is directed to issue a certificate considering the cost as arrears of land Tribunal and recover the same from the considered officials and release the same

NC: 2025:KHC:45158-DB WP No. 9198 of 2021

17 -

HC-KAR

in favor of the applicant on proper identification.

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28