Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

P.Manoj vs Assistant Executive Engineer on 18 August, 2014

Author: P.R. Ramachandra Menon

Bench: P.R.Ramachandra Menon

       

  

  

 
 
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                          PRESENT:

                 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

                MONDAY,THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014/27TH SRAVANA, 1936

                                 WP(C).No. 21141 of 2014 (P)
                                    ----------------------------

PETITIONER :
------------------

            P.MANOJ, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O.BALAN ADIYODI
            DEPLOYED METER READER UNSKILLED WORKER
            P.H. SECTION PURAMERI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT

            BY ADV. SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL

RESPONDENTS :
----------------------

        1. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
            W.S.P SUBDIVISION VATAKARA,
            KOZHIKODE DISTRICT - 673101

        2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALABHAVAN,
           KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001

             BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC,

            THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
            ON 18-08-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
            FOLLOWING:


BP

WP(C).No. 21141 of 2014 (P)
----------------------------

                                          APPENDIX

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1:          CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER DT 21-12-2013.

EXHIBIT P2:           LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3:          TRANSFER ORDER DT 19-07-14 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4:          REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DT 01-08-14
                     BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT


RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS                  :         NIL.


                                                          //TRUE COPY//




                                                          P.A.T O JUDGE

BP



                P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
              ========================
                   W.P.(C). No. 21141 of 2014
              --------------------------------------------
             Dated this the 18th day of August, 2014

                             JUDGMENT

The petitioner who was working as an 'unskilled worker', was subsequently deployed by the respondent Water Authority as 'Meter Reader', after imparting training.

2. The case of the petitioner is that, Ext.P1 certificate has been issued to the petitioner on completion of the training imparted to Meter Readers and that he was discharging his duties to the best of his ability. But since the petitioner was to work in remote locality, the target could not be achieved and hence the petitioner was reverted to the post as an 'unskilled worker' and has been transferred to a distant place about 60 kms away from his native place, as per Ext.P3 order dated 19.07.2014. This made the petitioner to approach this Court challenging Ext.P3, contending that Ext.P3 order amounts to demotion and that he was never given an opportunity of hearing.

3. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Water Authority as well, who submits that, the lapse on the part of the petitioner is clearly discernible from Ext.P2 issued as early as on 31.1.2014. The extent of work completed by the petitioner in respect of different months from September, 2013 till January, W.P.C. No. 21141 of 2014 -2- 2014 has also been clearly mentioned therein, alerting the petitioner as to the requirement of the target already fixed in this regard. Since the petitioner could not raise to the occasion, there was no other alternative for the respondent Water Authority, but to have posted him as 'unskilled worker', which post is actually held by him, thus putting an end to the deployment as a Meter Reader.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner has been taken up by way of Ext.P4 before the second respondent and seeks for a direction to have it considered with some leniency.

5. After hearing both the sides, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the second respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P4 in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within 'two months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for further steps.

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

kp/-