IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.33224/2019 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN:
SRI. S. HEMANTH KUMAR S/O SANNARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEVALAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MYSURU TALUK & DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. Y.R.SADHASHIV REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. JAI PRAKASH REDDY M, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ M S BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU – 570 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUKA PANCHAYATH, MYSURU, MYSURU DISTRICT – 570 001 4. SMT. PUSHPA BAI W/O SRI.HARISH G.NAIK AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS EX-PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER DEVALAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH MYSURU TALUK PRESENTLY WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KAMPALAPURA GRAMA PANCHAYATH PERIYAPATNA TALUK – 571 107 R/O NO.4/8 GROUND FLOOR, KEMPEGOWDA STREET, KUVEMPU NAGAR, COD BLOCK MYSURU ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY SARATHI, ADV. FOR SRI.KRISHNA.B, ADV. FOR C/R4; SMT.M.S.PRATHIMA, AGA, FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING QUASH THE ORDER DTD:29.7.2019 IN APPLICATION NO.4532/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B PASSED BY KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NARAYANA SWAMY J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Challenging the order dated 29th July, 2019 passed by the Tribunal in Application No.4532 of 2019 allowing the application filed by the fourth respondent, this petition is filed. The grounds taken are that father of the petitioner is suffering from cancer and hence he made a request to consider his case for transferring him to a nearby place of Mysore. The transfer of this petitioner was challenged by the fourth respondent and the Tribunal allowed the application by referring guidelines dated 31st March, 2012. As is required under the Government Order under Item No.13 Sub-clause (5) in case the spouse or children suffering from serious ailment for which medical treatment is not available in a place where an employee is working, an application could be made and rightly considering the application made by the petitioner under the said provisions, transfer was effected. The Tribunal committed an error in quashing the transfer order.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of Tribunal is to be set aside and respondents are to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to report at the transferred place.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent who was the applicant before the Tribunal supports the order. It is his submission that in case if the petitioner is entitled for Transfer on medical ground, then he has to make an application under item No.5 of Government Order, which permits if the spouse or children are suffering from terminal disease and if such application is made, it is for the respondents to pass appropriate order through counseling.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the guidelines produced, which was relied upon by the Government and also looked into the order passed by the Tribunal. Any application to be made for consideration on medical ground, has to be made under item 5 of the Government Order which pertains to preparation of priority list on medical and other grounds. Secondly, as per item No.13 sub-clause (5) which pertains to the employee or his spouse or children, if they are suffering from any terminal disease then their case may be considered. This expression excludes the parents of an employee. At this juncture, an observation needs to be made that when the children or spouse of the employee suffering from terminal disease have been included, the rationale in excluding the parents from the list is not forthcoming. While considering the case on medical grounds, in addition to the spouse and children, Government needs to consider the case of parents also. For that a specific provision is to be made. With these observations, we are inclined to dispose of this petition. While so disposing, liberty is to be reserved to the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents for considering his case under item No.5 of the guidelines. If such an application is made, as per the provisions, the same shall be considered within a period of four weeks from today. Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE lnn Sd/- JUDGE