Sri G A Manjunath vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 29 November, 2012

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri G A Manjunath vs The Managing Director Ksrtc on 29 November, 2012

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                                                          1




   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

       DATED THIS THE 29th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                         BEFORE

  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

        WRIT PETITION NO.47734/2012 (S-KSRTC)


BETWEEN:

Sri G.A. Manjunath,
S/o. G.C. Ankappa,
Aged about 49 years,
Working as Security & Vigilance Officer,
BMTC Central Workshop - 1,
Shantinagar,
Bangalore - 560 027.
                                              ... PETITIONER
(By Sri Narendra Gowda, Adv.)

AND:

1. The Managing Director,
   KSRTC.,
   Central Office, Shantinagar,
   Bangalore - 560 027.

2. The General Manager,
   (Staff) KSRTC.,
   Central Office, Shantinagar,
   Bangalore - 560 027.

3. Sri Sampath Kumar,
   S/o. Raghupathi,
   Aged about 50 years,
   Working as Security & Vigilance Officer,
                                                           2




  KSRTC.,
  Mangalore Division,
  Mangalore - 570 037.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS


     This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 227 of
the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order
passed by R2 dated 22.11.2012 vide Annexure -D.

      This petition coming on for preliminary hearing this
day, the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

The petitioner, a Security and Vigilance Officer of KSRTC, presently working in BMTC Central Workshop-1, Shantinagar, Bangalore-560 027, has assailed in this writ petition, an order dated 22.11.2012 as at Annexure-D, by which he has been transferred and posted as Security and Vigilance Officer, Chikmagalur Division i.e., the post which one K.N.Lakshman, Security and Vigilance Officer was occupying.

2. Sri Narendra Gowda, learned counsel contended that the petitioner is unable to comply with the order of transfer since he suffers from severe heart and diabetic 3 ailments and that the transfer would cause undue hardship to the petitioner.

3. I do not find justification to interfere with the impugned order on the grounds urged by the learned counsel. Chikmagalur is a developed place wherein there are nodal hospitals where KSRTC employees can avail medical facilities. Even otherwise, travelling time between Chikmagalur and Bangalore could be hardly about 5 hours. There are round the clock bus facilities between Chikmagalur and Bangalore. On the ground of personal hardship, an employee holding transferable post cannot avoid the transfer. (See State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. S.S. Kourav - (1995) 3 SCC 270).

Since the impugned order is neither arbitrary nor illegal much less mala fide, no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Writ petition stands rejected.

However, it is open to the petitioner to persuade the Management to take a decision on the representation made seeking re-consideration of the order of transfer. Needless to observe that, the respondent can consider the representation without reference to the rejection of this writ petition.

Sd/-

JUDGE Ksj/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court