Kerala High Court
V.K.Kunhikrishnan vs Kerala Water Authority
Author: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/1ST ASWINA, 1938
WP(C).NO. 9639 OF 2012 (D)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------
1. V.K.KUNHIKRISHNAN
PUMP OPERATORS, P.H. SECTION,
KERALA WATER AUTHORITY PURAMERI, PIN - 673 503,
KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
2. ANILKUMAR..M.M
P.H SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PURAMERI UNDER PH DIVISION, VADAKARA, PURAMERI,
PIN - 673 503, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
3. PRADEEPAN..K.K
PH SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PURAMERI, PIN - 673 503, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
4. NAVANEETH.N.R
PH SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,
PURAMERI, PIN - 673 503, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
5. MANEESH.,K,
PUMP OPERATOR, W.S.P SECTION, VADAKARA, VADAKARA.P.O,
PIN - 673 101, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------
1. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
PIN-695033
2. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (GL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY)
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
PIN-695033
3. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, W.S.P SUB DIVISION,
VADAKARA - 673 101, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT.
R1-R3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
23-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).NO. 9639 OF 2012 (D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT-P1-TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD ISSUED BY AMRITA INSTITUTE
OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND RESEARCH CENTRE TO THE IST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT-P2-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 18/11/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P3-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 08/11/2011 OF The 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P4-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KWA/JB/E5-3384/2010 DATED
10/04/2012 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT-P5-TRUE COPY OF BUILDING TAX RECEIPT DATED 19.12.2011 ISSUED
TO THE PETITIONER BY VALLIAPALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT
EXHIBIT-P6-TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 2/05/2012 OF THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, VADAKARA
EXHIBIT-P7-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 23/04/2012 OF THE EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PH DIVISION, VADAKARA
EXHIBIT-P8-TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 10/04/2012 OF THE DEPUTY CHIEF
ENGINEER (GL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
EXHIBIT -P9: TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 1.6.2012 OF THE PETITIONER
EXHIBIT -P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 20.6.2012 OF THE STATE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, SWP, SUB DIVISION, VADAKARA
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL
//TRUE COPY//
P.A TO JUDGE
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.
.............................................................
W.P.(C).No.9639 of 2012
.............................................................
Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2016
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners are all working as Pump Operators under the Kerala Water Authority and they approached this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of transfer, whereby they have been transfered from the PH Section, Purameri to PH Section, Perambra both within the Vadakara Division of the respondent Water Authority. The writ petition was admitted on 13.04.2012 and there was an interim stay granted, against operation of the transfer order insofar as it related to the petitioners. The stay that was granted initially for a period of one month, was thereafter extended from time to time and continuoes to be in force even today. Effectively, the petitioners have been continuing in the present station, notwithstanding the order of transfer, for over three three years now. It is stated that the 1st petitioner has since retired from service and the 5th petitioner has left the services of the respondent Water Authority. The stay against transfer therefore operates only in favour of petitioners 2 to 4, who are still in the services of the -2- W.P.(C).No.9639 of 2012 respondent Water Authority. In the writ petition, the order of transfer is impugned primarily on the ground that, if the petitioners are transferred out of the present station there will be a shortage of staff in the said station. It is also pointed out that in the place of the the petitioners there is no person transferred to the present station. It is also contended that under the respondent Water Authority, there is no practice of transferring Pump Operators except when specifically requested by them. Reference is also made to the averment in Ext.P4 order which states that the transfers are ordered as per the request of the employees to contend that the petitioners themselves had not made any request, and therefore, the transfer ordered in Ext.P4 is based on an erroneous appreciation of facts, and hence, illegal. Lastly, it is contended that there was no administrative exigency that necessitated the transfers that were ordered in Ext.P4.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioners have not been transferred to distant locations and the transfer is within the same division. It is pointed out that the transfer of the petitioners is only -3- W.P.(C).No.9639 of 2012 from Purameri to Perambra which is not very far so as to require the petitioners to shift their place of residence to take up the assignment at the transferred location. The averments in the counter affidavit with regard to malafides have been vehemently denied and it is stated that consequent to a shifting of posts of Pump Operators that was necessitated in the respondent Water Authority, the petitioners were displaced to be accommodated in neighbouring offices so as to accommodate persons from outside the district. The averment in the writ petition that there was no administrative exigency is also seen denied in the counter affidavit.
2. I have heard Sri.P.Chandrasekhar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as also the learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent Water Authority.
3. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that the order of transfer is impugned in the writ petition effects a transfer of the petitioners 2 to 4 (petitioner 1 having since retired and petitioner -4- W.P.(C).No.9639 of 2012 5 having left the services of the Water Authority and therefore not effected by orders to be passed in this writ petition) from Perumeri to Perambra both of which places are within the Vadakara Division of the Water Authority. The distance between the two locations is insignificant inasmuch as the petitioners will not be required to shift from their place of residence to take up the duties at the transferred locations. It is trite that in matters of transfer this Court would be loathe to interfere with the orders of transfer save in exceptional circumstances where the transfer is found to be vitiated by malafides, either factual or legal, or is vitiated on account of non-compliance with statutory rules and regulations. In the instant case, I do not find any instance of malafides that is established, and further, there is no violation of any statutory rule or regulation. In matters of transfer, this Court would ordinarily defer to the wisdom of the employer, for it is the employer who knows his employees best, and where they should be deployed in connection with the work of the establishment. Inasmuch as the employer has found that there is an administrative exigency necessitating the transfer of the employees in question, and there is no material available in the writ petition which would suggest -5- W.P.(C).No.9639 of 2012 otherwise, I am of the view that, the writ petition in its challenge against Ext.P4 order must necessarily fail. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. While dismissing the writ petition, it is made clear that, if the petitioners 2 to 4 join the transferred location within a week from today then they shall be treated as having joined the transferred location pursuant to Ext.P4 order.
Sd/-
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE mns/23.09.16