Karnataka High Court
WP/52880/2019 of RAMU Vs THE MANAGING DIRECTOR on 27 December 2019
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 52880 OF 2019 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: RAMU, S/O LATE R B RAMACHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT THIMMAKKAJJI COMPOUND, NEAR RAVI DEPOT, 7TH CROSS,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 27[TH|]DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019
BBREFOR
THR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT|
;WRIT PETITION NO. 52880 OF 2019 (SKSRTC)
BRTWEEN:
RAMU,»/O LATE RB RAMACHANDRAIAH,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,R/AT THIMMAKKAJJUI COMPOUND,NEAR RAVI DEPOT,T[TH]CROSS, BANASHANKARI, |TUMKUR —-— 572 102
_.. PRHTTTION
(BY SRI. M C BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,BANGALORE — 560 O27.KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,BANGALORE — 560 O27.
2 THE CHIEF PERSONAL MANAGER,(ESTABLISHMENT)KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,BANGALORE — 560 O27.(ESTABLISHMENT)KSRTC, CENTRAL OFFICES,K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR,BANGALORE — 560 O27.
3,THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION,TUMKUR - 572 101.KSRTC, TUMKUR DIVISION,TUMKUR - 572 101.
— RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226)AND 227 OF JHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO)OQUASHTHRIMPUGNED|ORDERVIDE;GENERAL|ESTABLISHMENT ORDER DATED 09.12.2019 (ORDER OF)TRANSFER) ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-E TO THE W.P.AND ETC.,.
THISPRTITION|COMINGON|FORPRELIMINARY|HEARINGTHIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- oD
ORDER
Page 1 of 2
Petitioner is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this|court for laying a challenge to the order dated 9.12.2019,acopy whereof is at Annexure - E whereby, he has beentransferred from Tumkur Division to Chitradurga Divisionof respondent-KSRTC. He has also sought for a directionto consider his representation dated 13.12.2019, a copywhereof is at Annexure — F.
2 |Having heard the learned counsel for the.petitioner and having perused the Petition papers, thiscourt declines to grant indulgence so far as attack on thetransfer order is concerned since admittedly, petitioner hascompleted the maximum retention period prescribed forthe cadre of the kind. The ground that he happens to bephysically handicapped does not avail for invalidating theimpugned transtier.
3. |However, in view of the decision of the Apex|
Court inVaradarao Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1986 SC.
1955, the respondents are liable to consider petitioner’s|representation dated 13.12.2019 at Annexure — F, within aperiod of three weeks and inform him of the result thereof without fail; if consideration of the representation is delayed, the 1[3.]respondent shall pay to the petitioner a|
sum of Rs.5,000/- for the delay of every fortnight.
Writ Petition is disposed off keeping open allcontentions of the parties.
Bsv
Sd/-|
JUDGE
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…