JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)The petitioner has sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order dtd. 31/5/2022 at
Annexure-'F', whereby the petitioner has been transferred
and posted to I.C.I. & M.I.S. Sec. , Corporate Office,
BESCOM, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru from the existing place of
work, i.e. at O&M, E-3 Sub-Division, BESCOM, Shivajinagar
Division, Bengaluru.
(2.)It is submitted that the respondent No.4 has been posted to the place of petitioner. The petitioner
submits that he is due to retire on 31/3/2023, which fact is
not in dispute. It is the contention of the petitioner that
while passing the order of transfer, the respondent Nos.1 to
(3.)ought to have taken note of the possibilities of extension of tenure in terms of Clause 9(a)(i) of the Transfer
Guidelines 2013, and also considering the aspect that the
petitioner is physically challenged or disabled, which would
be a relevant factor for consideration of extension of his
tenure and retention in terms of Clause 9(a)(vii). In this
regard, reliance is placed on the order of Co-ordinate Bench
dtd. 22/7/2015 in W.P.No. 24572/ 2015 [C.Vasudeva
v. The State of Karnataka and Others ] and the order
dtd. 29/11/2021 in W.P.No.19379/ 2021 [Anitha.C v.
The Managing Director, KPTCL & Others ], while
contending that retention ought to be a rule where an
employee is to retire within two years, unless there are
extraordinary circumstances justifying the non-retention.
3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the correct interpretation of Clause 9(a)(i)
would be that the petitioner upon making a representation
would be entitled for extension of tenure after following the
procedure under Clause 9(a), which would apply to
premature transfer. It is further contended that there may
have been administrative considerations also in passing the
impugned orders.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.