Salary Of Officer Relieved From Post Without Next Posting To Be Recovered From Official Empowered To Order Transfer: Karnataka High Court
Issuing guidelines on posting of state government officials, the Karnataka High Court has said that if an officer is relieved from his previous post without providing him with the next posting then his salary for the waiting period shall recovered from the officer empowered to order such transfer. The court was hearing an Excise officer's plea challenging an order passed by the the...
Issuing guidelines on posting of state government officials, the Karnataka High Court has said that if an officer is relieved from his previous post without providing him with the next posting then his salary for the waiting period shall recovered from the officer empowered to order such transfer.
The court was hearing an Excise officer's plea challenging an order passed by the the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which rejected his plea to quash a Notification dated 29.01.2025 posting another officer in the petitioner's place without providing the petitioner any posting.
A division bench of Justice SG Pandit and Justice KV Aravind took note of an affidavit filed by the State government and noted:
"From the reading of the above, it is clear that though there was vacancy of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the Government took its own time to take decision to give posting and only on direction of this Court, posting was given to the petitioner under Notification dated 12.01.2026. When an officer is transferred without providing any posting asking him to report before the competent authority, making him to wait for posting months together or years together would lead to payment of salary to such Government servant without extracting any work from him. Transfer without providing any posting would result in compulsory waiting and the Government shall have to pay salary to such official for sitting at home without any work. This amounts to irresponsible utilization of public money and mismanagement of tax payers money. To avoid such circumstances, the Government shall not transfer an officer/official without providing posting and even if transfer is effected without providing posting, such officer shall not be relieved until he is provided with a posting"
The court further referred to a 2016 decision Miss Seema v/s State of Karnataka & Others stating that the high court had deprecated the practice of lifting an officer from one post without providing posting.
"This Court has also observed that such practice of lifting an officer without providing posting would keep such an officer in lurch about his next posting," the bench said.
The court thus passed the following directions:
- The respondents – State shall not transfer an officer/official without providing a posting to him on his transfer.
- Directing a transferred officer/official to report before competent authority would not amount to providing posting.
- If State transfers an officer/official without providing any posting to him, then such officer/official who is not provided posting shall not be relieved of his duties in the previous post until he is provided with posting.
- If an officer is transferred without providing him a posting and if he is relieved from his previous post, until he is given next posting the salary and allowances paid to such Government servant during his compulsory waiting period, shall be recovered from the officer who is vested with the power to effect such transfer, i.e., the Secretary to Government or Head of the Department or any other officer as the case may be, forthwith.
The petitioner was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi North District, Chikkodi, in pursuance to Notification dated 29.12.2022. Under the Notification dated 29.01.2025, the fourth respondent was posted in the petitioner's place as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi North District, Chikkodi and petitioner was directed to report before the competent authority.
Accordingly, the petitioner reported before the competent authority i.e., Government on 07.02.2025. Questioning the Notification dated 29.01.2025, posting fourth respondent in his place, the petitioner approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's application holding that petitioner had completed his tenure at Belagavi North District, Chikkodi.
Tribunal also observed that when the petitioner has reported before the competent authority, the order under challenge has been implemented and it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the implemented order.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that for the last nearly one year, the petitioner has not been given a posting. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 was posted in the place of petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner. Since the petitioner reported before the State Government on 07.02.2025 he has not been provided with any posting and adding that the petitioner would be satisfied if a posting is given to him.
In view of this submission the court had by order dated 08.01.2026 directed the respondents to provide posting to the petitioner by 13.01.2026. On 13.01.2026, learned Additional Government Advocate had produced Government Notification dated 12.01.2026 providing posting to the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Head Office, Bengaluru.
On 13.01.2026, the Court directed the Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Excise) to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for not providing posting to the petitioner for nearly one year and also to indicate in the affidavit the officers who are responsible for providing posting to officers who have not been provided posting. However the affidavit was not filed in terms of the court's order. Accordingly another affidavit was filed
The court directed its Registry to forward a copy of the court order to the Chief Secretary for circulation among the Secretaries and the Heads of Department.
The plea was disposed of.
Case title: SRI K ARUN KUMAR v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA and OTHERS
WRIT PETITION NO. 35777 OF 2025