LAWS(KAR)-2007-1-25

K B BANDEKAR Vs. PRINCIPAL COSERVATOR OF FOREST

Decided On January 31, 2007
K.B.BANDEKAR Appellant
V/S
PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BAVAN, BANGALORE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a Range forest Officer in the Forest department of the Government of Karnataka. While he was working as Range Forest Officer at Raibag in Belgaum District, he was transferred to the Works Project at Shimoga vide Annexure-A1 order dated 15. 05. 2006. Claiming that the petitioner is due to retire within a period of less than two years, he submitted annexure-A2 representation dated 15. 06. 2006 requesting that he may be retained at Raibag. He also filed Application No. 4251 of 2006 in the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal questioning annexure-A1 order of Transfer. But the Tribunal disposed of the said application with a direction to the Cadre Management authority to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 15. 06. 2006. In compliance with the direction of the karnataka Administrative Tribunal, the cadre Management authority considered the matter and decided to post the petitioner to a Vacant post in the Works Project at Belgaum vide Annexure-A4 order. Not being satisfied with Annexure-A4 order, the petitioner filed Application No. 6538 of 2006 challenging Annexure-A4 order and praying for a direction to continue him at Raibag itself. However, the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application holding that there is no infirmity whatsoever in annexure-A4 order. The said order dated 18. 12. 2006 of the Tribunal (Annexure-B) is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) WE have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also considered the materials placed on record.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, Annexure-A1 order dated 15. 05. 2006 transferring the petitioner from Raibag to Shimoga was passed during the general transfer in the year 2006. It is also not disputed that at the time of passing Annexure-A1 order, the petitioner had already completed a period of three years at Raibag and was due to be transferred out as per the guidelines contained in Government order No. DPAR 4 STR 2001 dated 22. 11. 2001. Hence the petitioner was aware that he was due to be transferred out during the general transfer. If he wanted to avail of the benefit under clause 5. 1 of the said Government Order, he should have made a representation to the competent authority to retain him at Raibag or to post him at any other place of his choice as he is due to retire within two years on attaining the age of superannuation. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any such representation. Finding that he had already completed three years at Raibag, he was transferred to Shimoga. However, when he made Annexure-A2 representation, it was considered sympathetically by the Cadre management Authority and Annexure-A1 was modified by giving a posting at Belgaum in a vacant post. It is specifically stated in annexure-A4 order that though the petitioner has got only less than two years to retire, he had not made any representation seeking retention at Raibag or posting at any other place of his choice and therefore he was transferred out from Raibag as he had completed the period of maximum stay at Raibag. It is also seen from Annexure-A4 order that the petitioner was given a posting at Belgaum taking into account the circumstances stated in his representation Annexure-A2. In such circumstances, we agree with the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal that there is no infirmity in Annexure-A4 order and that the application No. 6538 of 2006 was liable to be dismissed.