Sri P K Mallikarjunaswamy vs The Managing Director on 3 November, 2017

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri P K Mallikarjunaswamy vs The Managing Director on 3 November, 2017

Bench: Raghvendra S. Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

                             BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN


        WRIT PETITION NO. 48889 OF 2017 (S-TR)

BETWEEN:

SRI P. K. MALLIKARJUNASWAMY
S/O. P. N. KADURAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
DEVELOPMENT LIMITED (KRIDL),
HUVINA HADAGALI DIVISION ,
TALUK: HAVINA HADAGALI,
DISTRICT: BELLARY-583219,
R/O. HOUSE NO.183/B,
2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN,
SAPTHAGIRI RESIDENCE,
MUTTURAI NAGAR,
OPP. INDIA STATISTICAL INSTITUTE,
BENGALURU-560023.
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI N. B. PATIL, ADV.)

AND:

1.     THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
       KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
       DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,
       (FORMER KARNATAKA LAND ARMY)
       GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN,
       4TH AND 5TH FLOOR, ANANDARAO CIRCLE,
       BENGALURU-560009.
                           -2-



2.   THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
     DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,
     (FORMER KARNATAKA LAND ARMY)
     GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN,
     4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ANANDARAO CIRCLE,
     BENGALURU-560009.

3.   SRI M. RAVI
     AGE: MAJOR,
     EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
     AWAITING POSTING IN THE OFFICE OF THE
     MANAGING DIRECTOR,
     KARNATAKA RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE
     DEVELOPMENT LIMITED,
     (FORMER KARNATAKA LAND ARMY)
     GRAMEENABHIVRUDHI BHAVAN,
     4TH & 5TH FLOOR, ANANDARAO CIRCLE,
     BENGALURU-560009.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM DTD: 24.10.2017 AT
ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE R-1, IN SO FAR AS THE
PETITIONER AND THE R-3 ARE CONCERNED AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO CONTINUE THE PETITIONER AS EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, KRIDL, HUVINA HADAGALI DIVISION, BELLARY
DISTRICT WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                      ORDER

The petitioner has challenged the transfer order dated 24-10-2017 passed by the Managing Director, -3- Karnataka Rural Infrastructure Development Limited ('KRIDL' for short).

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are the petitioner is working as an Executive Engineer for the KRIDL. By order dated 27-01-2017, the petitioner was transferred from the post of Executive Engineer (Technical Audit) Head Quarters, Bengaluru, to the KRIDL, Huvina Hadagali Division. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner joined the said post on 02-02-2017. He has been working at the said place since 02-02-2017. However, by the impugned order dated 24-10-2017, while respondent No.3, Mr. M. Ravi, is posted in the place of the petitioner, the petitioner is being kept "awaiting posting orders". Hence this petition before this Court.

3. Mr. N. B. Patil, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has extraneously contended that the Board of KRIDL had adopted the transfer policy promulgated -4- by the government. According to the transfer guidelines of the government, the petitioner could not be disturbed from this place of posting for a period of two years. However, even before the petitioner could complete one year, he is being disturbed. Secondly, the petitioner is being kept awaiting posting orders. According to the learned counsel, it was the duty of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to ensure that the petitioner is transferred from one place to another place. But he cannot be kept in animated suspension by keeping him "awaiting posting orders". Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with by this Court.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

5. Undoubtedly, the KRIDL has adopted the transfer policy prevalent in the government. However, the resolution of the Board dated 28-02-1997 clearly states that the policy is being adopted "as far as -5- possible". Thus, the policy is not a binding one upon KRIDL. Hence the transfer of an officer is left at the discretion of the KRIDL. Therefore, the contention being raised by the learned counsel, that the petitioner cannot be disturbed from his place of posting for a period of two years, cannot be accepted.

6. In catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that freedom at the joints has to be given to the employer to transfer and post its employee, in the interest of administration. Since keeping a person awaiting posting order is not a punishment, but is merely a temporary arrangement, no illegality is committed by an employer, if he were to keep an employee awaiting posting order. Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel is equally unsustainable.

-6-

For the reasons stated above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. It is hereby dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE Rd/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court