- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. WRIT PETITION NO.105768 OF 2023 (S-KAT) BETWEEN: SMT. NETRAVATI H.S., W/O DR. VISHWANATH PARANNAVAR AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. SUPERVISOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICE, DHARWAD RURAL DISTRICT, R/O. BHOVI PLOT, TEJESWINI NAGAR, DHARWAD-580002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DIRECTOR OF WOMEN AND CHILD WELFARE DEPT., M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1ST FLOOR, MULTISTORED BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. 4. CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, DHARWAD RURAL, APMC YARD DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580006. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K. HIREGOUDAR, PRL. GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4) VINAYAKA B V Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2022 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT BELAGAVI IN APPLICATION. NO.11152/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO LAW, AND GRANT THE RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR IN THE APPLICATION NO.11152/2021 BEFORE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL & ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B. ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) The petitioner is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order dated 21.12.2022 passed in Application No.11152/2021 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Belagavi1, whereunder the petitioner’s application is partly allowed. 1 For short ‘Tribunal’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 2. The petitioner’s grievance is that the Tribunal ought to have allowed the application as prayed for and treated the entire period of 396 days as compulsory waiting period and ought to have paid salary and allowances by quashing the endorsement dated 19.02.2021 at Annexure-A6. 3. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Santosh B Rawoot for the petitioner and learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for the respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. The petitioner is working as Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development. The petitioner was transferred by order dated 29.1.2019 from Dharwad to Chitradurga. In pursuance of the said transfer order, the petitioner was relieved from her duty on 2.2.2019. The petitioner approached the Tribunal in Application No.750/2019 questioning her transfer from Dharwad to Chitradurga. It is stated that in the said application, the Tribunal by order dated 6.2.2019 directed the parties to maintain status-quo. The said application was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 27.1.2020 by quashing the order of transfer. It is stated that on quashing of order of transfer, the petitioner is stated to have joined the duty on 3.3.2020 at Dharwad. Subsequent to joining the duty, the petitioner is said to have made representation to treat the period from 2.2.2019 to 3.3.2020 as compulsory waiting period and to pay salary and allowances for the said period. The said representation was considered and under endorsement dated 19.2.2021 (Annexure-A6), out of 396 days, 8 days were treated as compulsory waiting period under Rule 8(15)(f) of KCSR, 73 days were treated as half-pay leave, 207 days were adjusted towards earned leave and 108 days were treated as leave without pay. Questioning the said endorsement, the petitioner was before the Tribunal in Application No.11152/2021. The Tribunal under impugned order dated 21.12.2022 partly allowed the application and directed the respondents to treat the period which is treated as leave without pay as “compulsory waiting period” and to pay full salary and allowances. It is the case of the petitioner that the entire 396 days ought to have been treated as compulsory waiting period - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 and the Tribunal ought to have directed for payment of full salary and allowances. 5. Learned counsel Sri. Santosh B Rawoot would submit that the Tribunal in Application No.750/2019 had granted interim order of status-quo on 6.2.2019, hence, the respondents/authorities ought to have treated the entire period of 396 days as ‘on duty’ by treating the same as compulsory waiting period. It is also his submission that the said application was allowed and transfer order was quashed. In that light, the petitioner would be entitled for treating the entire period of 396 days as compulsory waiting period. Thus, he prays for allowing the writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Advocate Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar for the respondents would submit that in fact the Tribunal has already granted relief to the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to treat the entire period of 396 days as compulsory waiting period. It is submitted that by the time the interim order of status-quo granted on 6.2.2019, the petitioner on 2.2.2019 itself was - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 relieved from duty and other person, who was posted in the place of petitioner, had already reported to duty. Therefore, it was for the petitioner to join duty at the transferred place. He further submits that in fact, there was no order of stay of transfer order and there was only interim order of status-quo. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the only point that would fall for our consideration in this writ petition is, whether the impugned order passed by the Tribunal requires interference? 8. Admittedly, the petitioner, who is working as Supervisor in the Department of Women and Child Development, was transferred under order dated 29.1.2019 from Dharwad to Chitradurga. It is an admitted fact that the said transfer order dated 29.1.2019 was the subject matter of Application No.750/2019, in which the Tribunal had granted an order of status-quo on 6.2.2019. It is also an admitted fact that by the time the order of status-quo was granted, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 petitioner on 2.2.2019 itself was relieved from the post of Supervisor at Dharwad and the person who was posted in her place had already reported to duty. On her relieve on 2.2.2019, it was for the petitioner to report to duty at the transferred place. If the Tribunal had granted stay of the order of transfer, then the contention of the petitioner could have been accepted. In the absence of stay of transfer order and in the teeth of order of status-quo, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. The petitioner having failed to report to duty at the transferred place, the period during which the petitioner had not reported to duty is rightly treated as leave available at the credit of the petitioner. 9. Moreover, the Tribunal has granted relief to the petitioner in respect of 108 days, which period earlier treated as leave without allowance. In fact, the Tribunal considering the case of the petitioner in exercise of discretionary power directed the authorities to treat the said 108 days as compulsory waiting and to pay full salary and allowances. In - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13756-DB WP No. 105768 of 2023 that light, we do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands rejected. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (GEETHA K.B.) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43