Kerala High Court
Sudarsana Babu vs State Of Kerala on 4 August, 2009
Author: P.N.Ravindran
Bench: P.N.Ravindran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 13856 of 2009(B)
1. SUDARSANA BABU, AGE 52 YEARS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. PORT OFFICER,
3. SRI.PRASANNAN.S.,
For Petitioner :SMT.M.KABANI DINESH
For Respondent :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :04/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.13856 of 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated 4th August, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Smt.C.G.Preetha, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri.M.V.Thamban, the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
2. The petitioner who is presently working as Master Grade II in the Neendakara Port has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P3 order passed by the Director of Ports, transferring him from Neendakara to Kozhikode and the third respondent from Kozhikode to Neendakara.
3. The petitioner entered service as Seaman in the year 1981. He was initially posted in Neendakara Port. In the year 1988 he was sent on deputation to the Fisheries Department. He was repatriated to the Department of Ports in the year 1993. In the year 2002 he was transferred to Kozhikode where he served for a period of five years. Thereafter he was promoted as Master Grade III on 23.9.2007 and was posted back to Neendakara. By Ext.P1 order dated 8.4.2009 the Director of Ports promoted the petitioner and five others to the category of Master Grade II. The petitioner and WP(C).No.13856/2009 2 Sri.Alexander.P.R. were retained at Neendakara. The third respondent who was also working as Master Grade III at Neendakara was transferred and posted at Kozhikode. Ext.P1 order of transfer took effect and the petitioner joined duty as Master Grade II on 6.5.2009. It appears thereafter the third respondent moved the Director of Ports seeking cancellation of his transfer to Kozhikode on the ground that he is due to retire from service on 31.3.2010 and also for the reason that he has to undergo surgery for removal of gall bladder stone and also on the ground that he is undergoing treatment for other ailments in the Amritha Institute of Medical Sciences, Cochin. The Director of Ports considered the said request and passed Ext.P3 order transferring the petitioner to Kozhikode and the third respondent to Neendakara. The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 order of transfer on the ground that the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1 has taken effect and he has assumed charge at Neendakara and that no reasons exist to vary the same. He also contends that the third respondent has exerted pressure and influence on the Director of Ports and that Ext.P3 is the outcome of such pressure and influence exerted by the third respondent.
4. The official respondents have filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the petitioner will retire from service only on WP(C).No.13856/2009 3 31.3.2012 while the third respondent will retire from service on 31.3.2010 and on the terms of the Government orders governing transfer and posting of Government servants, he was entitled to be posted in his home town or in a station of his choice. It is also stated that the third respondent was suffering from various ailments and that he had also undergone a surgery recently. The third respondent has filed a counter affidavit justifying the stand taken by the Director of Ports.
5. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The pleadings disclose that the Director of Ports has considered the medical condition of the third respondent and also the fact that he is due to retire from service on 31.3.2010 when he modified Ext.P1 transfer order and transferred the petitioner to Kozhikode and third respondent to Neendakara. On the facts disclosed from the pleadings, it cannot be said that the Director of Ports has acted arbitrarily or for extraneous considerations when he modified Ext.P1 order of transfer. The fact that the third respondent will retire from service on 31.3.2010 is not in dispute. He will cease to be in office in another seven months. The third respondent also suffers from various ailments. In such circumstances, if the Director of Ports thought it fit that the third respondent should WP(C).No.13856/2009 4 be posted at Neendakara, it cannot be stated that the said decision is in any way arbitrary or capricious. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the challenge to Ext.P3 is without any merit.
I accordingly dismiss this writ petition with the observation that the petitioner shall be posted back to Neendakara with effect from 1.4.2010 after the third respondent retires from service.
P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS