Karnataka High Court
Srikanth Konale vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 November, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056
WP No. 202827 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.202827 OF 2024 (S-TR)
BETWEEN:
SRIKANTH KONALE
S/O RAMRAO KONALE,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKING AS A MANAGER,
COMMUNICATION NAVIGATION
SURVEILLANCE, KALABURAGI AIRPORT,
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
RESIDENT OF PLOT NO.164,
2ND BLOCK, GDA LAYOUT,
VEERENDRA PATIL BADAVANE,
NEAR M. B. NAGAR POLICE STATION,
KALABURAGI 585105.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed by
RENUKA (BY SRI BHARAMAGOUDA K. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION,
RAJEEV GANDHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110003.
2. UNION OF INDIA,
THROUGH SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL
AND TRAINING,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056
WP No. 202827 of 2024
MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSIONS, NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-110001.
3. AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN,
RAJEEV GANDHI BHAVAN,
SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT,
NEW DELHI-110003.
4. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
DIRECTORATE OF HUMAN
RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
EC SECTION, RAJEEV GANDHI BHAVAN,
NEW DELHI-110003.
5. THE AIRPORT DIRECTOR,
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
KALAURAGI AIRPORT,
SEDAM ROAD, KALABURAGI-585102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SUDHIRSINGH R. VIJAPUR, DSGI)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO,
ISSUE A WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER OF THE
PETITIONER VIDE ORDER NO.A.22012/09/2024-HR-EC DATED
05.08.2024, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA, DIRECTORATE OF HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT,
EC SECTION, SAFDARJUNG AIRPORT, NEW DELHI. THE NAME
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056
WP No. 202827 of 2024
OF THE PETITIONER IS AT SERIAL NO.3 AT (C) NEW
TRANSFERS AT SERIAL NO.3 WITH EMPLOYEE NO.10002157
VIDE ANNEXURE-L DATED 05.08.2024 SUPRA AS ILLEGAL,
ARBITRARY AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN EYE OF LAW, TO THE
EXTENT OF PETITIONER CONCERNED. II) ISSUE A WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TRANSFER OF THE
PETITIONER VIDE ORDER NO.A.22012/09/2024-HR(EC) DATED
17.10.2024 AMENDED TRANSFER ORDER PASSED BY THE
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, HUMAN RESOURCES I.E.
RESPONDENT NO.4 THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IS
APPEARING AT SERIAL NO.25 IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED IS HEREWITH PRODUCED AND MARKED AS
ANNEXURE-P.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) The captioned petition is filed assailing the impugned transfer order dated 05.08.2024 issued by respondent No.4/Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Department.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024
2. Facts Leading to the Case:
The petitioner in this case is an employee appointed by Respondent No.3 to the position of Junior Executive (Electronics). Over time, the petitioner was promoted to Assistant Manager (Electronics) and subsequently to Manager (Electronics). Currently, the petitioner is contesting a transfer order issued by the respondent authorities, claiming that the transfer is in contravention of the established transfer guidelines.
3. The petitioner has raised concerns with the respondents, submitting a detailed representation to the authorities. In this representation, the petitioner emphasized that his daughter has special needs and requires continuous care and specialized support, available only at a rehabilitation center located in Kalaburagi. The petitioner requested that his transfer order be reconsidered, allowing him to stay close to his daughter's rehabilitation facility for her welfare and care. The request, as indicated in Annexure-L, was reviewed by Respondent -5- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 No.4; however, the authority declined to accommodate the petitioner's appeal for exemption from the transfer. Consequently, the petitioner is challenging the transfer order in the present petition before this Court.
4. Heard the counsel appearing for petitioner. The Deputy Solicitor General of India represented the central government in this matter.
5. After examining the case documents, the Court took note of the arguments and the supporting evidence submitted by the petitioner. During the hearing, the Deputy Solicitor General informed this Court that he has not received any specific instructions pertaining to this case, and therefore, no formal statement had been submitted in response to the petition.
6. The petitioner is challenging the impugned transfer order, which is documented in Annexure-L. As grounds for this challenge, the petitioner refers to the respondents' transfer guidelines and an official -6- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 memorandum issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India. This memorandum, attached as Annexure-G, outlines specific provisions and guidelines concerning employee transfers. The Court finds it appropriate to examine the pertinent sections of the transfer guidelines in order to evaluate the petitioner's claims and the alleged procedural deviations made by the respondents.
"I. Exemption from routine exercise of transfer/ rotational transfer in respect of Government employee, who is a caregiver of Person with Disability dependents:
(i) A Government employee who is a
care-giver of dependent daughter/son/
parents/spouse/brother/sister with
Specified Disability, as certified by the certifying authority as a Person with Benchmark Disability as defined under Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 may be exempted from the routine exercise of -7- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 transfer/rotational transfer subject to the administrative constraints.
(ii) The term "Specified Disability" as defined in the Schedule to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, covers
(i) Locomotor disability including leprosy cured person, cerebral palsy, dwarfism, muscular dystrophy and Act attack victims
(ii) Blindness (iii) Low-vision (iv) Deaf (v) Hard of hearing (vi) Speech and language disabilities (vii) Intellectual disability including specific learning disabilities and autism specturum disorder (viii) Mental illness (ix) Disability caused due to: (a) Neurological conditions such as Multiple sclerosis and Parkinson's disease (b) Blood disorder-Haemophilia, Thalassemia and Sickle cell-disease and (x) Multiple disabilities (more than one of the above specified disabilities) including deaf blindness and any other category of disabilities as my be notified by the Central Government.
(iii) The term 'Specified Disability' as defined herein is applicable as grounds -8- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 only for the purpose of seeking exemption from routine transfer/rotational transfer by a Government employee, who is a care-
giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/ spouse/brother/sister as stated in Para I
(i) above.
3. All the Ministries/Departments are requested to bring the above instructions to the notice of all appointing authorities under their control, for information and compliance. The Department of Public Enterprises may ensure to give effect the above guidelines in the all the Central Public Sector enterprises."
7. Upon careful examination of the exemption guidelines issued by the Union of India regarding routine and rotational transfer of government employees who are caregivers for persons with disabilities, this Court finds that the impugned transfer order of the petitioner contradicts the stated transfer policy. The official memorandum, referenced at Annexure-G, clearly grants an exemption to government employees who act as caregivers for dependents with specified disabilities, from -9- NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 the routine exercise of transfer or rotational transfer, provided certain administrative constraints are met.
8. The petitioner's daughter has been certified as having an intellectual disability amounting to 80%, which qualifies as a "Specified Disability" under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, as defined in Section 2(r) and the Schedule. This definition includes various conditions such as intellectual disabilities and specific learning disorders, thus substantiating the petitioner's claim for exemption. As referenced in Paragraph I(ii) of Annexure-G, "Specified Disabilities" include intellectual disabilities along with other conditions that necessitate specialized care and continuous attention.
9. In this case, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation (Annexure-J) highlighting his daughter's need for specialized support at a rehabilitation center located in Kalaburagi. This Court observes that the petitioner's request, based on the official memorandum and the circumstances surrounding his daughter's health,
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024 aligns with the transfer policy exemptions. However, Respondent No.4 declined to grant this exemption without providing any reasoning or clarification regarding the administrative constraints that would prevent the petitioner's continued service in Kalaburagi. Conversely, it has come to the Court's attention that the respondents/authorities have allowed similar exemptions in comparable cases, providing detailed justifications, as evidenced by Annexure-P. The lack of reasons in declining the petitioner's request signifies an inconsistency in the application of transfer policy and exemption criteria.
10. Additionally, the Court has noted that, subsequent to the petitioner's transfer, his position at Kalaburagi Airport has not been filled, nor has any other employee been appointed to take over his duties. This indicates that the transfer order may not have been driven by pressing administrative needs or essential organizational restructuring, thereby further undermining the validity of the transfer.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024
11. In light of the above considerations, this Court concludes that the transfer order is not in alignment with the transfer guidelines and the petitioner's eligibility for exemption as a caregiver for a dependent with a disability. Given that the petitioner's transfer was not based on any immediate administrative necessity and his representation was dismissed without rationale, the transfer order lacks substantive justification.
12. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth, this Court issues the following order:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned transfer order bearing No.A.22012/09/2024-HR-EC dated 05.08.2024, as referenced in Annexure-L, and the subsequent transfer order bearing No.A.22012/ 09/2024-HR(EC) dated 17.10.2024, as referenced in Annexure-P, are hereby set aside.
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:8056 WP No. 202827 of 2024
(iii) The respondents/authorities are directed to permit the petitioner to resume his duties at Kalaburagi Airport, enabling him to fulfill his responsibilities while ensuring the welfare and continued support of his daughter's rehabilitation needs.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT-SW