SRI C. VASUDEVA Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, REP., BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the legality of the order dated 11.6.2015 passed by the Additional Secretary to Department of Urban Development, whereby the respondent No. 4, Mr. H.T. Krishnamurthy was posted on the post of Chief Officer, Alur Grama Panchayat, the post which was held by the petitioner from 31.7.2013 till passing of the transfer order.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner Mr. C. Vasudeva - was appointed on 17.3.1976 on the post of Water Supply Helper in the Department of Urban Development. He was posted in Town Municipal Council, Holenarasipura. He worked in the said post for ten years. Subsequently, he was transferred to Town Municipal Council, Sakaleshpur. He was promoted to the post of Typist and transferred to Hassan City Municipal Council. Thereafter, he w as promoted as First Division Clerk in 1998 and was transferred to Arasikere as First Division Clerk and Assessing Officer. Subsequently, 2001, he was transferred to Belur Town Panchayat; thereafter, in 2004, he was transferred to Arakalagudu Town Panchayat; he served at Arakalagudu Town Panchayat till 2013. By order dated 31.7.2013, he was transferred from Arakalagudu Town Panchayat to the Alur Town Panchayat. He was working as the Chief Officer till the impugned order dated 11.6.2015 was passed. By the said order, while the petitioner has been kept awaiting posting order, the respondent No. 4 has been posted as the Chief Officer to the Alur Town Panchayat. Hence, the present petition before this Court.

(3.) Mr. Lohitaswa Banakar, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pleaded that according to the Transfer Policy, 2001, an employee who has less than two years of service before retirement, he/she should not be disturbed from his/her place of posting. In the present case,the petitioner is due to retire on 31.5.2016. With only 11 months left to his retirement, the petitioner has been transferred without any valid reason. Thus, the transfer policy has been violated by the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set-aside.