- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106564 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: MARTIN, S/O RATHNAPPA BANDI, AGE. 64 YEARS, RETIRED ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION, SUB DIVISION, HONNAVAR, R/O PLOT NO.109, SIRUR PARK, VIDYANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580021. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORT AND INLAND TRANSPORT (SERVICE_A) VIKASHA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ, M.S.BUILDING, BENGLAURU-560001. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 3. SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKASHA SOUDHA, BENGLAURU-560001. 4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION SUB DIVISION, HONNAVARA, DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301. 5. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION DIVISION, KARWAR-581301. 6. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL DRINKING WATER AND SANITATION RANGE, DAKA BANGALA, SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILLA PANCHAYATH, KARWAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581301. 8. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E) KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, P.B.NO.5329/5369, ANNEXE BUILDING, PARK HOUSE ROAD, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R6 & R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OR CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22-6-2023, PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BELAGAVI IN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 APPLICATION NO.10638/2022, THE COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PRODUCED HEREWITH AT ANNEXURE-C & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The present writ petition is filed by the applicant before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi1, calling in question the order dated 22.06.2023 passed on Application No.10638/2022, whereunder the application filed by the petitioner to quash the order dated 06.06.2018 (Annexure-A1) insofar as treating the period from 07.09.2016 to 28.11.2017 as leave without pay and for other reliefs, has been dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was working as an Assistant Executive Engineer in the Health Department, Hubballi, and pursuant to the Government Order 28.06.2016 his services were placed at Rural Development 1 ‘the Tribunal’, for short - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 and Panchayat Raj Department (RDPR). It is the case of the petitioner that he came to know on 17.09.2017 that he was posted as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Rural Drinking Water & Sanitation, Sub-division, Honnavar, as per the Government Order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A8) and he reported for duty on 27.09.2017. Since the order was almost a year old, he was required to seek a direction from the second respondent-Secretary, Department of RDPR, and thereafter, he joined duty on 29.11.2017. The petitioner made a representation for treating the period from 07.09.2016 to 28.11.2017 as waiting period along with eligible pay and allowances. However, the same was rejected by order dated 06.06.2018. Being aggrieved, the petitioner was before the Tribunal. The application before the Tribunal was filed belatedly after a delay of 1110 days. Hence, an application was filed for condonation of delay. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.06.2023, allowed the application for condonation of delay; however, dismissed the main application. 3. Learned counsel, Sri. J.S.Shetty, appearing for the petitioner vehemently contends that the order dated 06.09.2016 was not communicated to the petitioner and, after - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 learning of his transfer and posting, he has reported for duty within a reasonable time. Hence, he contended that the Tribunal ought to have granted the relief sought for in the application. It is further contended that the petitioner has been denied salary for the period from 06.09.2016 to 27.11.2017 and hence, the relief sought for in the application ought to have been granted. 4. Per contra, Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State, justifies the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Submissions of both the counsel have been considered and the material on record has been perused. The only question that arises for consideration is, Whether the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be interfered with? 6. The factual matrix is undisputed inasmuch as the petitioner, who was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, Health Department, Hubabblli, was transferred and posted to Honnavar, Rural Drinking Water & Sanitation, Zilla Panchayat, Uttara Kannada District, vide order dated 06.09.2016 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 (Annexure-A8). Admittedly, the petitioner reported for duty only on 27.11.2017. The Tribunal considering the relevant factual matrix noticed that the petitioner had submitted representation dated 09.02.2017 (Annexure-A6) and 28.07.2017 (Annexure-A7) requesting to be posted to Hubballi-Dharwad. The Tribunal noticed that the period cannot be construed as a compulsory waiting period. In terms of Rule 8(15)(f) of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (KCSRs), the period spent by a government servant awaiting order of posting after being relieved from the post or after reporting for the duty is entitled for the said period to be treated as compulsory waiting period. However, in the present case, the posting having been given to the petitioner vide order dated 06.09.2016 (Annexure-A8), the question of treating the period from 06.09.2016 to 27.11.2017 when he reported for duty as compulsory waiting period does not arise. 7. The finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner repeatedly went on making representations rather than reporting for duty is justified having regard to the material available on record. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5994-DB WP No.106564 of 2023 Hence, the question framed for consideration is answered in the negative. 8. The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE KMS LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 8