Karnataka High Court
The Union Of India vs Smt.Uma.J.Honnakatti on 17 March, 2014
Bench: K L Manjunath, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
ON THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K L MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Petition No. 46430 of 2013 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE
PRODUCTION & SUPPLIES
NIRMAN BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 011
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
DIRECTORATE GENERAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DGQA)
ROOM NO. 234, SOUTH BLOCK
NIRMAN BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 011
3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
DIRECTORATE GENERAL
QUALITY ASSURANCE
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DGQA)
ROOM NO. 234, SOUTH BLOCK
NIRMAN BHAVAN, SOUTH BLOCK
NEW DELHI - 110 011
4. THE CONTROLLER
CONTROLLERATE OF QUALITY
ASSURANCE (ELECTRONICS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DGQA)
2
J C NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 006 ... PETITIONERS
[By Sri Y Hariprasad, Adv.]
AND:
SMT. UMA J. HONNAKATTI
W/O SRI DANAPPA S KATTIMANI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
WORKING AS ASST. ENGINEER (QA)
CONTROLLERATE OF QUALITY
ASSURANCE (ELECTRONICS)
MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DGQA)
J C NAGAR POST
BANGALORE - 560 006
RESIDING AT NO. 88
PALLAVI NIVAS, CQAL DEFENCE
LAYOUT, ATTUR
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 064 ... RESPONDENT
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 17.06.2013 IN O.A. NO. 405/2013 PASSED BY THE C.A.T. AT
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Aggrieved by the order dt.17.6.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in O.A.NO.405/2013 allowing the O.A. and directing the respondents to reconsider her transfer after a gap of 2 years, the respondent - Union of India has filed the present petition. 3
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. That transfer is an incident of service and interference by the CAT is uncalled for.
3. Considering the contentions as well as the impugned order, we are of the considered view there is no merit in this petition. The Tribunal took into effect the medical report of the son of the petitioner that he is suffering with 17% functioning of one kidney and 83% functioning of the second kidney and thereafter right kidney has also stopped functioning and the left kidney is functioning with a diminishing performance level. That he has been admitted to PUC and it would take 2 years to complete the said course. On these reasons the transfer order was quashed. However, the respondent was directed to reconsider the transfer after 2 years. The reasonings adopted by the Tribunal are just, proper and acceptable. When material has been shown that the petitioner's son is 4 suffering from a serious ailment and that the respondents to reconsider the transfer after a period of 2 years, we are of the view that there is no error committed by the Tribunal that calls for any interference. The order passed is just and proper.
4. Consequently, the petition being devoid of merits is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Ak