A government employee cannot claim an automatic right to an interim stay against a transfer order within the same headquarters without demonstrating specific hardship or prejudice to service conditions; such interim relief is subject to the specific facts of each case.

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2670/2026 BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

AND

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

1. The petitioner, a Deputy Tahsildar in Revenue Department is before this Court, questioning the order dated 01.06.2026 passed in Application No.2670/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short “Tribunal”), rejecting petitioner’s prayer for stay of transfer O.M. dated 27.05.2026, transferring her to the post of Audit Sheristedar at the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District.

2. Heard learned counsel Sri.M.K.Prithveesh for petitioner and Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was posted to the present post on 27.10.2022. Under impugned order dated 27.05.2026, the petitioner is transferred from Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District even before she completes her tenure of 4 years. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has completed 3 years 7 months and has a tenure till October 2026. As such, he submits that the transfer of the petitioner is premature. Further, learned counsel would submit that in terms of Transfer Guidelines, transfer within the Head Quarters would also amount to a transfer and in identical fact situations, the Tribunal had granted interim prayer. However, in the instant case, the Tribunal refused to stay the order of transfer. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for allowing the writ petition and to grant interim prayer as prayed before the Tribunal. Further learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by the time the Tribunal considers the petitioner’s application and passes order, the petitioner would complete her tenure, as such, the application before the Tribunal would become unnecessary.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 01.06.2026 passed by the Tribunal refusing to stay the transfer of the petitioner.

5. No doubt, posting within the Head Quarters from one office to another office is considered as a transfer as per the Transfer Guidelines. But, that itself would not give a right to the petitioner to enforce her right, unless she demonstrates as to how she is aggrieved or how it affects her service conditions. When the petitioner is posted from one office to another office within Bangalore, no hardship would be caused to the petitioner.

6. The contention that in identical fact situations, the Tribunal has granted interim order is noted only for the purpose of rejecting the same as precedents do not apply in the matter of grant of interim prayer, which would depend on the facts of each case.

7. We do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected.

It is open for the petitioner to seek early disposal of the application before the Tribunal. If such prayer is made, we are sure that the Tribunal would consider the same and take up the application for disposal, as expeditiously as possible.