- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 27483 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. MAHADEVA NAIKA K., S/O. KARUGA NAIKA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, KARNATAKA MINING ENVIRONMENT, RESTORATION CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, WEST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001, RESIDING AT No. 971, 3RD MAIN, D BLOCK, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE 560 010. PH: 9036023966 EMAIL ID: NAIKAKMAHADEVA@GMAIL.COM …PETITIONER (BY SRI SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, (ADMINISTRATION AND ADVANCES), Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. KHAJA MAINUDDIN M. D., FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, WORKING AS CHIEF FINANCE OFFICER, KARNATAKA MINING ENVIRONMENT RESTORATION CORPORATION, 2ND FLOOR, WEST WING, KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE IN APPLICATION No.4063/2025, IN SO FAR AS NON GRANT OF INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED (ANNEXURE-A). THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard Sri.K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned AGA for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the interim order dated 08.09.2025 in Application No.4063/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') rejecting the petitioner's prayer for stay of Notification of Transfer dated 01.09.2025 (Annexure-A5). 3. Sri. K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is holding tenure post and he took charge on 30.10.2023. Learned counsel inviting attention of this Court to Annexure-A4- Government Order dated 19.03.2024, which lays down terms and conditions of the petitioner's deputation, would submit that the petitioner has tenure upto 29.10.2026 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 therefore, curtailing his tenure without assigning any reason is bad in law and the Tribunal failed to take note of said contention. Further, learned counsel would submit that under impugned order, the Tribunal with an observation that authorities have every right to repatriate the services of the applicant to his parent department after assigning reasons, is fully erroneous and at this stage, the said finding could not have been given by the Tribunal. 4. Learned AGA on the other hand would submit that the petitioner is already relieved and therefore, the Tribunal is right in granting an order of status quo. Further, learned AGA would submit that the petitioner tenure is upto 29.10.2026 or until further orders whichever is earlier. Therefore, the State Government would be within its Authority to seek repatriation of the petitioner. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the Tribunal. Granting or otherwise of the interim order is discretion and that discretion shall be based on the facts and circumstances and the discretion shall be exercised judiciously. In the instant case, taking note of the fact that the petitioner is already relieved, the Tribunal has rightly granted an order of status quo. 6. The Tribunal has noted that 'no reasons had been mentioned which requires under law' which would mean that the Tribunal would go into the reason for repatriating the petitioner at the time of hearing the main application. Whether the petitioner would possess right to continue till his completion of his tenure i.e., 29.10.2026 or whether the Government could curtail petitioner's tenure and seek repatriation is to be decided by the Tribunal. At this stage, we restrain ourselves from giving any finding on the said issue. The Tribunal shall proceed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35635-DB WP No. 27483 of 2025 to consider the main application without being influenced by any of the observations made in the course of impugned interim order or any of the observations made by us in the above order. 7. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. The Tribunal shall expedite disposal of the application since it is a transfer matter. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13