Karnataka High Court
Shri G V Byrareddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 March, 2014
Bench: K.L.Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.48409 OF 2013(S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
Shri G.V.Byrareddy
S/o late Sri Venkatarayappa
Aged about 70 years
Retired Assistant Engineer,
Public Works Department,
Government of Karnataka,
R/at House No.533,
4th Main Road, 19th Cross,
Vidyaranyapuram,
Mysore - 570 008. ...PETITIONER
(By Sri B.B.Bajentri, Advocate)
2
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Represented by its Principal Secretary
Public Works Department,
Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. The Chief Engineer
Communication & Buildings(South),
K.R.Circle,
Bangalore - 560 001.
3. The Principal Secretary
Government of Karnataka
Urban Development Department
Vikas Soudha,
Bangalore - 560 001.
4. The Commissioner
Mysore Urban Development Authority
Mysore - 577 008. ...RESPONDENTS
(By Sri R.Ramdas, AGA for R1 to R3
R4 is served and unrepresented)
*****
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
order passed by the Honb'le KAT passed in Application
No.5424/2006 dated 18.9.2013 vide Annexure-A and
allow the application No.5424 of 2006 etc.,
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary
hearing this day, Ravi Malimath J., made the following:-
3
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dated 18.09.2013, passed in Application No.5424/2006 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the plea of the petitioner, the present petition is filed.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is an Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department and he was deputed to the office of the fourth respondent and was working in the said office from 19.06.1998 onwards. Consequent to transfer and posting of one Sri.Prakash Neggudagi, to the said post, the petitioner was relieved from the office of the fourth respondent, with a direction to contact the Housing Department in view of posting to the Karnataka Housing Corporation as per notification dated 05.06.1998. The same was challenged in Application No.4575/1998 before the 4 Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. By an order dated 21.08.1998, it was stayed.
3. Thereafter he approached the fourth respondent requesting appropriate action. However, no action was taken. Subsequently he approached the first respondent requesting posting. Finally, by the notification dated 27.12.2001 the petitioner was transferred and posted in a vacant post in Vidhana Soudha. He reported to the said post on the date the applicant retired from the service on attaining the age of superannuation.
4. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No.43954/1999 wherein a direction was issued to the fourth respondent, Commissioner, to pass appropriate orders on his request to treat the period of absence as compulsory waiting period. By an order dated 30.09.2005, the period of absence from 20.07.1998 to 5 30.12.2001, was treated as Extra Ordinary Leave, with a direction to grant further benefits admissible.
5. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a application No.5424/2006 before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the same was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. That the facts and circumstances of the case is that period from 20.07.1998 to 30.12.2001 requires to be treated as compulsory waiting period and consequent reliefs has to be granted. The contention of the petitioner is that since O.M. dated 20.07.1998 was stayed by the Tribunal by an order dated 21.08.1998, the appropriate relief requires to be granted to him. However, the Tribunal was of the view that there was no direction in the interim order by the 6 fourth respondent to take back the applicant to the duty. That even though a representation was submitted, it is the case of the applicant, that the fourth respondent did not take any action. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was of the view that the applicant had reported before the first respondent seeking posting to him. Repeatedly the applicant had sought for posting to any vacant post in Mysore alone and such request has not been considered. Therefore, the absence of the applicant on duty from 20.07.1998 to 31.12.2001 cannot be attributed to any lapse on the part of the respondent
7. On considering the contentions and examining the impugned order, we do not see any error that requires to be intervened. We are of the view that the respondent was right in regularizing the period of absence as Extra Ordinary Leave by the impugned order. On examining the contentions and the material 7 on record, it would not be possible to accept the contention of the petitioner for treating the period of absence as compulsory waiting period. Under these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition.
8. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE JJ/-