CONTROLLER OF STATE ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT Vs. B NAGARATHNAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent is working in the State Accounts Department. Between 8-9-1998 to 16-7-2001 she was working as Accounts Superintendent in the office of the Karnataka State Women's Commission (second petitioner ). On 16-7-2001, she was transferred on promotion and posted as Audit Officer in the office of the Department of Rural Development Engineering, second respondent. She approached the Karnataka administrative Tribunal in Application No. 9687 of 2001 seeking a direction to the second petitioner herein to despatch her last pay certificate forthwith to the second respondent so as to enable her to draw her salary. In the said application she stated that in spite of expiry of four months from the date of transfer, the second petitioner did not issue the last pay certificate. When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before the Tribunal on 22-11-2001, the Tribunal directed the Government Pleader to take notice and disposed of the application directing the second petitioner herein to despatch the last pay certificate of the first respondent herein to the office of the second respondent within three days from the date of receipt of the order with a condition that if the second petitioner failed to do so, he shall be personally liable to pay interest at 12% per annum on the salary of the first respondent herein for the period during which the last pay certificate was withheld from 16-7-2001.

(2.) THE petitioners filed a Review Application No. 2 of 2002 contending that the first respondent had not handed over charge of office on her promotion and transfer as per order dated 16-7-2001 and that was coming in the way of issuing the last pay certificate. The petitioners also relied on Rule 85 of the Karnataka Financial Code in this behalf. The tribunal rejected the review application by an order dated 7-6-2002 on the ground that handing over charge is not a condition precedent for issue of a last pay certificate and if a Government servant did not hand over charge, it was open to the employer to either initiate disciplinary action or recall the employee to the department from which he was transferred for obtaining charge.

(3.) FEELING aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this petition and sought quashing of the order dated 22-11-2001 passed in Application No. 9687 of 2000 and order dated 7-6-2002 passed in Review Application No. 2 of 2002. The respondents though served, have remained unrepresented.