Back
2020 Supreme(Kar) 1972
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.SUJATHA, J.
Shri M.Venugopal S/o Late M.M.Muniswamy Reddy – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Writ Petition No.634 of 2020 (S-TR) c/w W.P.No.52350 of 2019 (S–RES)
Decided on : 13-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI A.S.PONNANNA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI VIJAYAKUMAR, ADV.
For the Respondent: SRI R.SUBRAMANYA, ADDL. A.G. ALONG WITH SRI M.V.RAMESH JOIS, SRI M.R.C.RAVI, SRI BIPIN HEGDE, ADV
Headnote:
Karnataka Civil Service Rules - Rule 32 - Notification - Deputation from KSFC – Transfer of order - Petitioner submitted that there was tripartite agreement between Government of Karnataka, KSFC and the worker’s Union, pursuant to which the petitioner was deputed to Water Resource Department in terms of Government Order - Minimum tenure was for a period of five years. No unilateral decision of repatriation can be taken by Government of Karnataka without the consent of lending department–KSFC and employee - Held, No employee can be made to suffer at the dusk of his service without any posting where he is required to move his paper for seeking the retiremental benefits and for other related issues - Fag end of service period of an employee should be conducive to keep him away from anxieties and stress - Repatriation order passed during the operation of stay order would indicate conduct of respondent, what could be inferred is, in order to negate/overcome interim order of this court, repatriation order is passed - In this context, judgments referred to by Learned counsel for respondents are of little assistance to respondents - Writ petitions are allowed.
ORDER :
Since similar and akin issues are involved in these matters, the same are heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner who is on deputation from KSFC to the 1st respondent-State Government was posted to Water Resource Department, B.R.Project, Bangalore by an order dated 11.7.2018. As per the Notification dated 06.12.2019 respondent No.4 has been posted to the place of petitioner, transferring the petitioner without posting which is the subject matter of W.P.No.52350/19. This Court vide order dated 18.12.2019 was pleased to pass an interim order staying the operation of the impugned Notification dated 6.12.2019 issued by the 1st respondent. During the pendency of the said proceedings, vide order dated 6.1.2020 impugned in W.P.No.634/2020, the services of the petitioner are being repatriated to the parental Department-Karnataka State Financial Corporation. Hence, these writ petitions.
3. Learned Senior counsel Sri.A.S.Ponnanna representing the petitioner submitted that there was tripartite agreement between the Government of Karnataka, KSFC and the worker’s Union, pursuant to which the petitioner was deputed to Water Resource Department in terms of the Government Order dated 25.6.2015. The minimum tenure was for a period of five years. No unilateral decision of repatriation can be taken by the Government of Karnataka without the consent of the lending department–KSFC and the employee. The order of repatriation passed during the operation of the interim order passed in W.P.No.52350/19 is ab initio void. It was argued that the transfer order dated 6.12.2019 passed to accommodate the respondent No.3Sri. F.H.Lamani without giving the posting to the petitioner is untenable.
It was submitted that the petitioner being the regular employee, priority should be given to him rather than the respondent No.3 appointed under Rule 32 of the Karnataka Civil Service Rules. The transfer order issued at the request of the private respondent suffers from legal malice. In support of his contentions learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. Union of India Vs. V. Ramakrishnan and others reported in (2005)8 SCC 394.
2. Sri.C. Vasudeva Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.24572/2015 (D.D.22.7.2015).
3. Miss.Seema H Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.48499/2016 (D.D.16.9.2016).
4. Sri.Raghurama Shetty Vs. The State of Karnataka in W.P.No.14393/2012 (7.6.2012).
4. Learned senior counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli representing the private respondent supporting the transfer order submitted that the petitioner was directed to report at the Water Resource Department in terms of the transfer order impugned. As such, it cannot be held that no posting is given to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner has suppressed several material facts. The petitioner was posted to work in the Water Resource Department on contract basis vide Government Order dated 25.6.2015 on certain terms and conditions imposed by the State Government which was purely on contract basis and the same will be in force until further orders. The petitioner is not an employee of the State Government. Clause 5 of the terms and conditions of the Government order dated 25.6.2015 empowers the Government to repatriate the petitioner at any time without assigning any reasons. Neither the transfer order nor the repatriation order impugned suffers from any legal flaws.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of Karnataka submitted that the Government order dated 25.6.2015 empowers the Government to repatriate the petitioner who was borrowed to the Water Resource Department from the lending Department KSFC on contract basis. No lien can be claimed by the petitioner in the said post. The Government has reserved the right to terminate the contract appointment of the official at any time during the contract period without assigning any reasons and the contract appointee shall stand repatriated to the parent organization in t
