IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.N. SATYANARAYANA AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.50417 OF 2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI B.S.RAJIV, S/O SRI. B.P. SRINIVASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDHAR, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 138.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.S.BHAGWAT, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY.M.C, S/O LATE CHICKANNA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OFFICE ASSISTANT, OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL, BEERASANDRA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 110.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.A.NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.10.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.6163/2019 (ANNX-A) FILED BY THE R2 HEREIN.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, SATYANARAYANA J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The respondent No.2 in Application No.6163/2019 on the file of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘KSAT’ for short) has come up in this writ petition impugning the interim order dated 23.10.2019.
2. Brief facts leading to this writ petition are as under:
Petitioner herein who was an Ex-military personnel was appointed and posted to work as Tahsildar, Grade-II in the office of Tahsildar, Srinivasapura Taluk. By order dated 17.10.2019 vide Annexure-A4 before the Tribunal, he was transferred to the place of Office Assistant, Bengaluru Rural, where the second respondent was discharging duty as Office Assistant. This order of transfer of petitioner herein to the place of second respondent was the subject matter of challenge before the KSAT in Application No.6163/2019 by the second respondent, where he has secured an interim order to continue him in the same post until disposal of the application which is filed by him. The correctness or otherwise of the same is the subject matter of this writ petition.
3. Though on several occasions, this Court has held that such kind of interim orders should not be considered at the interim stage by the Tribunal, in the instant case, considering the fact that the second respondent herein would be retiring on 31.07.2020, this Court is of the opinion that this proceedings should not be stretched to the extent of looking into the correctness or otherwise of the interim order.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that a direction may be given to the Tribunal to dispose of the application filed by the second respondent – Narasimha Murthy, with liberty being reserved to the petitioner herein to report for duty in the place where Narasimha Murthy is presently working would retire on his superannuation on 31.07.2020.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, who is the applicant before the Tribunal has no objection for the same.
6. In that view of the matter, this Court would observe that both petitioner and second respondent may make necessary submissions to the Tribunal seeking disposal of the application pending in Application No.6163/2019 to be disposed of in terms as it is agreed by both of them as stated supra, subject to acceptance of the same by the respondent - State.
With such observation, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE CA