Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh S vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO.17591 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI SURESH S
S/O SOMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
WORKING AS SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR,
CIRCLE-29, KARMIKA BHAVAN,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
LABOR DEPARTMENT,
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
ITI COLLEGE COMPOUND,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
3. THE LABOUR OFFICER
SUB-DIVISION - 3,
DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR,
-
2
KARMIKA BHAVANA,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
4. SRI. B.N.MANJUNATH
S/O LATE NINGEGOWDA,
AGED 48 YEARS,
SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR,
LABOUR DEPARTMENT,
15TH CIRCLE, KARMIKA BHAVANA,
DIARY CIRCLE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 029.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RUBEN JACOB, AAG FOR
SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SRI. SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/05/2024 PASSED IN
APPLICATION NO.37/2024 BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL (ANNEXURE-A) AND
CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPLICATION NO.37/2024
FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT HEREIN BEFORE THE HON'BLE
KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU
(ANNEXURE-B).
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 23.07.2024 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
-
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ petition is filed against the order dated
27.05.2024 of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal,
Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short)
in Application No.37/ 2024, allowing the fourth respondent's
application, consequently setting aside the order bearing
No.NGO-01/CR-62/2023-24 dated 01.01.2024 issued by the
second respondent, insofar as the fourth respondent and the
petitioner herein are concerned.
2. The relevant facts as stated in the writ petition
are as follows:-
The writ petitioner was the fourth respondent in
Application No.37/2024 filed before the Tribunal. On
01.01.2024, the petitioner while working as Senior Labour
Inspector, 29th Circle, the second respondent posted the
petitioner as Senior Labour Inspector, 15th Circle, in place of
fourth respondent and fourth respondent was posted to the
place of petitioner. Both petitioner as well as fourth
respondent were placed in Bengaluru. On 02.01.2024 the
-
petitioner took charge of the post of Senior Labour
Inspector, 15th Circle, Bengaluru.
3. Aggrieved by this order, the fourth respondent
herein approached the Tribunal in Application No.37/2024
and on 04.01.2024, the Tribunal stayed the Office Order
posting the petitioner in place of fourth respondent. On
27.05.2024 the impugned order passed by the Tribunal
allowing the Application No.37/2024 filed by the fourth
respondent herein and setting aside the office order dated
01.01.2024 passed by the second respondent. Against this
order, the present petition has been preferred before this
Court.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on
either side as well as the learned Additional Government
advocate appearing for the official respondents.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the Tribunal had interfered with the order of
transfer on the sole ground that the fourth respondent was
transferred prematurely and without recording any reasons.
-
It is submitted that the posting of the fourth respondent
from Circle No.15 to Circle No.29 was only a routine transfer
and would not come within the mischief of premature
transfer as contemplated in the transfer guidelines dated
17.06.2013. It is submitted that the private respondent has
been working in Bengaluru since 2011 and that as a
Government servant he cannot contend he has the right to
continue in the same post. It is further submitted that the
transfer did have the prior approval of the Chief Minister as
was evident from the reply statement of respondents No.1
to 3 and that since the transfer was within the same building
itself and there were no allegations of malafide, harassment
or even inconvenience to the party respondents. The
Tribunal ought not to have interfered in the order of
transfer.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that this Court in several decisions had
considered the identical situation and held that it is not in
every case of premature transfer that interference at the
hands of the Tribunal would be justified. It is contended
-
that since the fourth respondent was working in Bengaluru
from 2011 and has been transferred only from one circle to
another within the same office, and since there were no
allegations of malafide or harassment, there was absolutely
no reasons for the Tribunal to have interference with the
order of transfer.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the private
respondent would contend that the petitioner also was a
person, who has been working in Bengaluru itself. It is
further contended that mere approval of the Chief Minister is
not sufficient for making a premature transfer, but reasons
for such transfer have to be specifically recorded which was
absolute in the present case. It is submitted that since the
order of transfer was one passed without any reason
whatsoever, the finding of the Tribunal was well justified.
8. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that what was under challenge before the Tribunal
was an order of transfer of the fourth respondent from Circle
No.15 to Circle No.29 within the same office in the place of
the writ petitioner herein. It is not in dispute that the fourth
-
respondent had been continuing in Bengaluru itself since
2011. There were no allegations of malafide or harassment
involved in the transfer.
9. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in interfering with
the order of transfer on the ground that it was a premature
transfer and that the administrative reasons for such
transfer were not specifically mentioned.
10. In the special facts and circumstances of the
instant case, where officers were moved from one post to
another within the same office with the prior permission of
the Chief Minister, we are of the opinion that non-stating of
specific administrative reason cannot be held to vitiate the
order of transfer. Hence, we are of the opinion that this is
not a fit case, where the Tribunal should have quashed the
order on the ground of violations of the guidelines relating to
transfer.
11. Accordingly, we pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
-
(ii) The order of the Tribunal in Application
No.37 of 2024 dated 27.05.2024 shall
stand set aside.
(iii) The Application shall stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
JUDGE
cp*
