IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 25TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. M. SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO.58218 OF 2018 (S-KAT) BETWEEN:
B. G. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH SON OF LATE SANNA SIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, 41ST CIRCLE, ‘KARMIKA BHAVAN’, DAIRY CIRCLE, ITI COMPOUND, BANNERGHATTA STREET, BENGALURU-560 029.
(BY SRI RAVI H. K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA ... PETITIONER REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LABOUR DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, 4TH FLOOR, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER, KARMIKA BHAVAN, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 029.
3. N. V. GOVINDARAJULU SENIOR LABOUR INSPECTOR, 6TH CIRCLE, ‘KARMIKA BHAVAN’, DAIRY CIRCLE, ITI COMPOUND, BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU-560 029.
... RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ANITHA N., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R-1 AND R-2; SRI GIRISH S. JAMBAGI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-3 (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.8844 OF 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION NO.8844 OF 2018 AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.12.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A4 AND ORDER DATED 07.12.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A5 AND ETC.
***** THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he reported as a Senior Labour Inspector, 41st Circle, Bengaluru on 28.06.2017. After 1½ years, he was transferred to 6th Circle, in the same building. Questioning the same, the instant application was filed before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application. Hence, the instant petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the transfer is premature. That the same was negated by the Tribunal which held that the 41st Circle and 6th Circle are situated in the same office. That the nature of work is also identical. Moreover, the transfer is in public interest and in administrative exigency. That no hardship would be caused to the petitioner on transfer.
3. On considering the reasons assigned by the Tribunal, we do not find any ground to interfere with the well-considered order. We do not find any legal infringement of the petitioner. The transfer being made in the same office and the same building, it cannot be said to be opposed to the transfer guidelines. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ