Mr. J.K.Ray v. State of Karnataka : AIR 1986 SC 1955
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
Outcome
Disposed of
observations, this writ petition is disposed of
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. The above being said, the representation of the petitioner could not have been kept pending eternally on the table of jurisdictional officials. In Varadha Rao (supra), it is observed that when an employee gives a representation against the transfer, a post-haste decision has to…
Judgment
Mr. J.K.Ray, ASC CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD Order No. ORDER 07.08.2025
The petitioner gained entry to the public service as Junior Clerk with effect from 23.05.1996 and he was working in various Government schools from time to time. He earned his first promotion to the post of Senior Assistant with effect from
31.12.2019 and was posted to work in the Office of B.E.O., K.Gumma. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Office of B.E.O., Korukonda with effect from 31.01.2024. The petitioner earned the second promotion as Section Officer with effect from
30.06.2025 and as a consequence, came to be posted to the Office of B.E.O., Kalimela.
On the very next day of the second promotion, the post of Section Officer in the Office of B.E.O. Korukonda became vacant on the superannuation of the incumbent and therefore, he made a representation to post him to that vacancy to mitigate hardship on the ground that he had undergone cardiac operation and that he had school-going children. The said representation having not been considered, he is grieving the Writ Court.
Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the official Opp. Parties resists the petition contending that no public servant is immuned from transfer; it is the duty of every public servant to report to duty wherever he is posted by the Executive in its discretion; a host of factors enters the fray of deployment of the public servants and those factors are not judicially assessable, and therefore, petitioner having not joined the transferred place, to which he all these days cannot be shown any leniency by this Court. He relies upon the decision of apex Court in B.Varadha Rao v. State of Karnataka : AIR 1986 SC 1955.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this court is inclined to grant a limited and conditional indulgence in the matter, although broadly agreeing with the submission of the learned A.S.C. that every public servant is liable to be transferred, unless the Rule provides to the contrary, and in this case, there is no such contra Rule cited, and therefore, petitioner has to go and report at B.E.O. Office, Kalimela. Learned counsel for the petitioner assures the Court that his client will do that within one week. This is consistent with the observations in Varadha Rao (supra).
Learned A.S.C. is to some extent justified in telling the Court that an employee, who remains absent for long time only because his representation for transfer/posting is pending, cannot be shown leniency. As a broad proposition, it is arguably true. However, the Government being the Model Employer in the light of apex Court decision in Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam : AIR 2013 SC 234, cannot treat an ailing employee of his spouse ailing, i.e. suffering from cardiac disease in the instant case and also little children studying in schools with unkindness. “Shukra Neeti” says, the King will antagonize his servants, if he treats them with no dignity and with no human value, writes Justice Rama Jois in his “Services under the State”. Therefore, it is not a case for any penal action against the petitioner for not reporting for duty at Kalimela pursuant to his promotion order. However, he need not be given salary for the said period on the principle of dies non.
Operative part
The above being said, the representation of the petitioner could not have been kept pending eternally on the table of jurisdictional officials. In Varadha Rao (supra), it is observed that when an employee gives a representation against the transfer, a post-haste decision has to be made thereon, provided that he shows bona fide and punctuality in service by reporting for duty at transferred place. In the above circumstances and with the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Time for disposing of the petitioner’s representation dated 30.06.2025 at Annexure- 10 series is six weeks, unless it is already disposed of. All contentions in that regard are kept open. It is open to the answering Opp. Parties to solicit any information or document from the side of the petitioner, as are required for due consideration of the subject representation; however, in that guise, delay shall not be brooked. All parties to act upon web copies of this order. Manoj (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 08-Aug-2025 19:47:24
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.