Kerala High Court
E.K.Santhosh vs The Kerala State Co-Operative ... on 13 October, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936
WP(C).No.19426 of 2014 (C)
----------------------------------------
PETITIONER:
-------------------
E.K.SANTHOSH,AGED 46 YEARS,S/O.KRISHNAN,
ILLICKAL HOUSE,CHEMPU P.O,VAIKOM,FARM WORKER,
NOW WORKING AS STORE KEEPER IN CHARGE,OBM DIVISION,
ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENTS:
------------------------
1. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MATSYAFED,KAMALESWARAM,THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 009.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD.,(MATSYAFED),
KAMALESWARAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
3. THE MANAGER,(OUT MOTOR DIVISION),MATSYAFED,
WILLINGDON ISLAND,KOCHI - 682 003.
R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
pk
WP(C).No.19426 of 2014 (C)
--------------------------------------
APPENDIX
PETITIONERS EXHIBITS
-------------------------------------
EXHIBIT P1:TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 13.10.2011.
EXHIBIT P2:TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 19.06.2013.
EXHIBIT P3:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.08.2013 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4:TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 25.09.2013 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5:TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2014 OF THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6:TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED IN THE MONTH
OF AUGUST 2012.
EXHIBIT P7:TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25.07.2014
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: NIL
---------------------------------------
//TRUE COPY//
P.S.TO JUDGE
pk
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P(C) No. 19426 of 2014
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated the 13th day of October, 2014
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is aggrieved with the transfer effected as per Ext.P5. As per Ext.P5 the petitioner was transferred from Ernakulam and posted to Kannur. The petitioner submits that he has been transferred thrice in the course of an year. By Ext.P2, the petitioner was transferred from Malipuram-Ernakulam and posted to Vaikom. Again by Ext.P3, from Vaikom, he was shifted back to Ernakulam. Now, there is a transfer made to Kannur.
2. The petitioner relies on the staff regulation which have following guidelines with respect to transfer; specifically i to iv which is extracted hereunder:-
i. An employee can be transferred only if he has put in a minimum of three years of continuous service in a particular place except in the case of promoted employees.
ii. General transfers will be made only during W.P(C) No.19426/2014 ::2::
the summer vacation.
iii. All the Project Officers should work for a minimum period of three years in the northern districts of the State such as Kasaragode, Kannur, Kozhikode and Malappuram.
iv. Class IV employees should not normally be transferred out of their districts.
2. The petitioner submits that he has not completed three years in Ernakulam pursuant to Ext.P3 transfer. The petitioner also relies on the guidelines which normally prohibits such transfer out of the district; of Class IV employees.
3. The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that it was only on exigency of service that the petitioner has been transferred. The respondents clearly deny the malafides alleged, insofar as the petitioner having participated in a political rally. The respondents would contend that the net factory at Kannur, of the respondent, W.P(C) No.19426/2014 ::3::
has started a 3rd shift and there was acute shortage of manpower and only in such circumstance, that the transfer was made. The petitioner has filed Ext.P7 representation before the 1st respondent.
3. In such circumstance, the first respondent shall take a decision on the representation, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall not be shifted till then since there is an interim order from the stage of the admission of the writ petition.
Writ petition disposed of.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge