Kerala High Court
K. Sajeevan vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2011
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY 2012/4TH MAGHA 1933
WPC.No. 29712 of 2011 (L)
------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
K. SAJEEVAN, ASSISTANT MANAGER (N.C)
KERALA STATE CO-OPERAQTIVE FEDERATION OF
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD (MATSYAFED)
DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZGHA - 688 001.
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM)
SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES, DEPARTMENT
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD.
(MATSYAFED), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING, DIRECTOR
KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD.P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
3. THE ADMINISTRATOR,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD.
(MATSYAFED), KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD.P.O
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER,
THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR
FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD., (MATSYAFED)
DISTRICT OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 001.
BY SR.GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN
R,R2-4 BY SMT.K.P.SANTHI,SC, MATSYAFED
R,R2-4 BY SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM,SC,KERALA UTY.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-01-2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C) No. 29712/2011
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 4.11.2011 TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:
NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A. TO JUDGE
vps
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 29712 OF 2011
--------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of January, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner, an Assistant manager in the service of the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as `the Matsyafed' for short) has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order dated 4.11.2011 issued by the Managing Director of the Matsyafed whereby he was transferred from Matsyafed District Office, Alappuzha to Matsyafed District Office, Thrissur.
2. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer on various grounds. The first contention raised is that he has been transferred for the reason that he is a member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. The second contention raised is that the petitioner's wife is working as Revenue Inspector in the Revenue Department at Alappuzha and therefore he is entitled to be reained at Alappuzha. The third contention is that his minor son Abhijit Kumar is a VII standard student of St.Alocious Secondary School, Punnapra and in such circumstances if in the midst of the concurrent academic year he is transferred out, it would affect the studies of his child. The petitioner WPC No.29712/2011 2 has yet another contention that five Panchayats in Alappuzha district are placed under his control, that under the Peoples Planning Programme he has to disburse large amounts to the beneficiaries in the said five panchayats and therefore if he is transferred out before the end of the financial year, it would cause serious prejudice to them.
3. Respondents 2 to 4 have filed a counter affidavit. In paragraph 3 thereof it is stated that the petitioner has been in service for the past 23 years, that out of the past 23 years he has been working in Alappuzha for about 20 years and that for the last six years he has been uninterruptedly working in Alappuzha district. In paragraph 4, respondents 2 to 4 have denied the allegation that the petitioner was transferred out for the reason that he is member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. In paragraph 6 it is stated that besides the petitioner, there are nine other Assistant Managers who are working in the District Office at Alappuzha, that there are only six clusters, that the affairs of the six clusters can be managed by them, that besides the petitioner yet another Manager was transferred out from Alappuzha to Ernakulam and that it was taking into account the poor performance of the District Office at Matsyafed in Alappuzha district when compared to other districts that a decision was taken to transfer out two of the Assistant Managers with a view to improve the WPC No.29712/2011 3 functioning of the District Office at Alappuzha. It is stated that the transfer was ordered as a part of the exercise undertaken by the Administration to improve the working of the District Office of the Matsyafed at Alappuzha. The petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the contentions raised in the writ petition and contending that he is a field officer and generally field officers are not transferred out of their home district and are retained in their home district even on being promoted.
4. I heard Sri.Elvin Peter P.J., learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Anitha Ravindran, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State of Kerala and Sri.George Poonthottam learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. The petitioner challenges the order of transfer mainly on three grounds. The first contention is that he is transferred out for the reason that he is a member of the Matsyafed Employees Federation which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic Front. Apart from such a vague statement, the petitioner has not produced any cogent material to substantiate his contention. Ext.P1 order of transfer discloses that six employees were transferred. The petitioner has no case that all the six employees' who were transferred are members of the same federation or any other trade union or service organisation, which owes allegiance to the Left Democratic WPC No.29712/2011 4 Front. As stated earlier, apart from vaguely stating that his transfer is due to political considerations, the petitioner has not produced any material in support of the said contention. I therefore find no reason to interfere with Ext.P1 order on that score.
5. The next contention raised is that the mid term transfer will cause serious prejudice to his son, who is a student of the VII standard in St.Alocious Secondary School, Punnapra. The third contention is that the petitioner's wife is a Government servant who is employed in the Revenue Department at Alappuzha. Even in Government service it is not mandatory that the husband and wife should be retained at same station. All that the guidelines stipulate is that as far as possible, the husband and wife who are in Government service may be posted in the same station. The petitioner is admittedly not a Government servant. Therefore the mere fact that his wife is employed in the Revenue Department in Alappuzha is not a ground to hold that he is entitled to be retained at Alappuzha. That part, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has been working at Alappuzha for the past six years without break. During his service of 23 years he had served outside Alappuzha only for three years. Therefore applying the norms of transfer applicable to a Government employee he was liable to be transferred out. Then the only question is whether on account of the mere fact that his child is undergoing studies in the VII standard in WPC No.29712/2011 5 St.Alocious Secondary School, Punnapra, the order of transfer should be interfered with.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Director of School Education, Madras v. O.Karuppa Thevan and Another (1994 Supp (2) SCC 666) that transfers should not be effected during the middle of an academic year. In the said decision, the Apex Court held that although there is no such rule, while effecting transfers, the fact that children of the employee are studying should be given due weight if the exigencies of the service are not urgent. Respondents 2 to 4 have stated that Ext.P1 order of transfer transferring out two Assistant Managers including the petitioner from the District Office of the Matsyafed at Alappuzha was issued with a view to improve the performance of the Alappuzha District Office. It is also stated that as against six Assistant Managers who are required to run the District Office, there are eight Assistant Managers, two Project Officers/Trainees and other supporting staff, even after the transfer of the petitioner and yet another Assistant Manager. It is also stated with reference to facts and figures that the performance of Alappuzha District Office has been the poorest among the 9 marine district offices in the State of Kerala and in such circumstance in order to improve the performance, the transfer was effected. The petitioner has not been WPC No.29712/2011 6 able to show that the said statement made in the counter affidavit is factually incorrect. Though the petitioner has attempted to justify the level of performance achieved in the Alappuzha District Office, in paragraph 9 of the reply affidavit, the petitioner has virtually conceded the fact that the performance of Alappuzha District Office when compared to other district offices is poor. He has also chosen to give various reasons for the poor performance. In such circumstances as the petitioner has virtually admitted the fact that performance of the Matsyafed District Office at Alappuzha is poor, it cannot be said that the exigencies of service must yield to the personal preference of the petitioner or that the transfer should be kept in abeyance until such time as the academic year comes to an end.
I therefore find no grounds to hold that the transfer of the petitioner to Thrissur is in any way vitiated. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, (JUDGE) vps WPC No.29712/2011 7 WPC No.29712/2011 8