Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioner who is presently working as Manager in the Kerala State Co-operative Federation for Fisheries Development Ltd., otherwise known as the MATSYAFED, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P8 order issued by the Managing Director of the MATSYAFED on 17.3.2012, transferring her from the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kannur to the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Malappuram, against an existing vacancy. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

2. The petitioner entered service as Project Officer in the MATSYAFED on 1.2.1986. In course of time she was promoted to the category of Assistant Manager, Deputy Manger and as Manager with effect from 3.3.2003. Upon promotion to the category of Manager, she was posted in the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kozhikode where she was then working. She continued in the District Office at Kozhikode till 1.11.2004. She was thereafter posted as Manager in the District Office at Kannur where she worked for three years. With effect from 1.6.2007, she was transferred to the Head Office of the MATSYAFED at Thiruvanathapuram where she worked till 23.2.2011, when she was tranferred to the Net Factory at Kannur. While the petitioner was working as Manager in the Net Factory at Kannur, she was transferred and posted as Manager in the District Office at Kannur by Ext.P7 order dated 30.9.2011, when the incumbent holding the post was transferred and posted as Manager in the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Malappuram. It was while the petitioner was working as Manager in the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kannur that the impugned order was passed, transferring her to the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Malappuram. The second respondent who was working as Manager in the MATSYAFED Prawn Hatchery at Mopla Bay in Kannur was transferred and posted in the petitioner's place. He was also directed to hold full additional charge of Manager, MATSYAFED Prawn Hatchery, Kannur until further orders. In this writ petition the petitioner challenges Ext.P8 and seeks the following reliefs:
(i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P8 to the extent it orders for the transfer of the petitioner from Kannur to Malappuram;
(ii) To issue an interim direction directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as the District Manager, Kannur;
(iii) To declare that the transfer of the petitioner is not in the interest of service and therefore liable to be set aside.

3. It is stated that while the petitioner was working as Manger in the Head Office of the MATSYAFED at Thiruvananthapuram, she had a fall which resulted in the dislocation of her left shoulder and fracture of the right patella and thereupon, she underwent treatment as an inpatient in Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation, Venjaramoodu, Thiruvananthapuram during the period from 17.12.2010 to 28.12.2010 and was discharged on 28.12.2010. It is stated that at the time of discharge, Ext.P1 medical certificate was issued to the effect that absence from duty for a period of 90 days is absolutely essential for restoration of her health and that the treatment undergone by the petitioner as an inpatient in Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation is set out in Ext.P2 discharge certificate. The petitioner states that after she was discharged from Sree Gokulam Medical College and Research Foundation she had undergone treatment in Santhigiri Siddha Medical College Hospital during the period from 28.12.2010 to 23.1.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P3 discharge certificate and later in Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam during the period from 24.1.2011 to 29.1.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P4 discharge certificate, that she again underwent another course of treatment at Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam during the period from 2.9.2011 to 5.9.2011 as can be seen from Ext.P6 discharge certificate and was on leave for a period of 18 days from 2.9.2011 on that ground, that she thereafter rejoined duty on 21.9.2011, that shortly thereafter, by Ext.P7 order passed on 30.9.2011 she was transferred from the Net Factory at Kannur to the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kannur and the impugned order was thereafter passed on 17.3.2012 transferring her from Kannur to Malappuram. The principal contention raised by the petitioner is that the order of transfer has been passed with ulterior motives and with a view to victimize her, for her association with the MATSYAFED Employees Federation of which she is the Vice President, since October 2011. It is stated that she has been transferred on extraneous considerations and irrelevant grounds ignoring the fact that she had undergone extensive medical treatment for fracture of the left shoulder and the right knee and that as a result of the said injuries, notwithstanding the extensive treatment she is not able to move about freely and has to depend on private transport for her travel. It is contended that as she was transferred back to Kannur only in February 2011, the order of transfer passed within one year thereafter, is liable to be set aside. It is stated that the petitioner's husband is employed in the Kannur branch of the Canara Bank, that she and her husband are residing at Thalassery which is 21 kilometres away from Kannur and in such circumstances, having regard to her medical condition, she ought to have been retained at Kannur.

5. I heard Sri.P.K.Vijayamohanan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. George Poonthottam, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings and the materials on record. Though the second respondent has been served, he has not entered appearance or filed a counter affidavit. Ext.P8 order of transfer discloses that it was passed upon receipt of a tour report dated 13.3.2012 submitted by Sri.G.D.Rajiv, Additional General Manager. Though a copy of the report is not placed on record, a copy was made available to me for perusal by the learned standing counsel appearing for the MATSYAFED. In that report Sri.G.D.Rajiv, Additional General Manager has reported that there appears to be serious internal problems in Malappuram District Office and that there is need to bring in certain changes. He had also suggested that a senior person may be posted at Malappuram and the present Manager may be posted elsewhere, where there may not be much need for team work and he may also be sent for training on inter personal relationship. The said report was submitted after a review of the performance of the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Malappuram. As on the date of the submission of the report, Sri.P.A Sasikumar was holding charge of Manager of the MATSYAFED District Office at Malappuram. By the impugned order, he was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager in the MATSYAFED District Office at Kannur and the petitioner was posted as Manager in the MATSYAFED District Office at Malappuram against the existing vacancy.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side. Ext.R(1)(d) report discloses that during the 170 working days from 1.3.2011 to 10.10.2011, the petitioner had attended office on 106 days, was on leave for 41 days and on tour for 20 days. The petitioner has in Ext.P10 reply submitted by her stated that she was on tour mainly for the purpose of meeting various officers for the purpose of setting up the Net Factory at Kannur and that besides undertaking journeys within Kannur she had travelled to Kochi to visit the Net Factory on 30.3.2011, 31.3.2011, 12.5.2011, 13.5.2011, 23.5.2011, 30.6.2011, 1.7.2011, 2.7.2011, 23.7.2011 and 27.7.2011 pursuant to the instructions issued by the Managing Director and the Deputy Managing Director (CM), and that she had travelled to Ernakulam to attend the year ending review meeting held on 27.4.2011 to 30.4.2011 pursuant to order dated 19.4.2011 and that she was not on tour on any of the other days. It is evident from the materials on record that the petitioner was on tour only for a period of 20 days during a period of 170 days. Except for 14 days when she was required to come over to Cochin pursuant to the directions issued by the superior officers, she was on tour in Kannur itself. In other words, she had gone on tour out of Kannur district only for a period of 14 days during the period from 1.3.2011 to 10.10.2011. Therefore, the stand taken by the first respondent that as she was touring extensively, she cannot complain about the transfer to Malappuram and that she is medically fit to travel cannot be accepted. The first respondent also justifies the order of transfer on the ground that though Ext.R(1)(d) report warranted suspension of the petitioner and initiation of disciplinary action, taking a lenient view she was transferred out. The first respondent has also taken the stand that as the petitioner had rejoined duty after undergoing treatment by producing a medical certificate to the effect that she is fit to rejoin duty, it is implied that she is fit to be posted at any place. In my opinion, the stand taken by the first respondent that notwithstanding the serious injuries sustained by the petitioner as a result of a fall which necessitated surgical intervention and prolonged treatment, she is fit to be posted to any place and that her medical condition need not be looked into cannot bear scrutiny. It is evident from the stand taken by the first respondent in the coutner affidavit that the first respondent has not taken note of the medical condtion of the petitioner, especially the seriousness of the injuries she sustained in the fall. The Managing Director while ordering her transfer from Kannur to Malappuram did not also take note of the fact that the petitioner's husband is employed in the Kannur branch of the Canara bank and that if the petitioner is transferred to Malappuram district, she will have to travel to Malappuram from Thalassery where she is permanently residing with her husband, notwithstanding the serious injuries which she suffered in December, 2010 and the difficulties experienced by her as a result thereof. In other words, the Managing Director was insensitive to the medical condition of the petitioner that necessitated her continuance at Kannur. That apart it is evident from the impugned order itself that a vacancy of Manager had arisen in the MATSYAFED Prawn Hatchery at Kannur when the second respondent was transferred from the Prawn Hatchery and posted as Manager in the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kannur. The said vacancy has not so far been filled up and the second respondent has been given only additional charge. If as contended by the respondents, it was necessary to post another person as Manager at Malappuram, in the place of Sri.P.A.Sasikumar who was holding charge of Manager, the second respondent could have been posted at Malappuram. In such circumstances, even assuming that it was necessary to shift the petitioner from the District Office of the MATSYAFED at Kannur to another place, she could have been transferred and posted in the Prawn Hatchery at Mopla Bay, instead of giving full additional charge to the second respondent. Even going by the version of the first respondent there was some deficiency in the functioning of the MATSYAFED District office at Kannur, which if true will require the second respondent to be left free to attend to the MATSYAFED District Office, instead of attending to the affairs of the Prawn Hatchery also. On the facts and materials available, I am persuaded to agree with the petitioner that she has been transferred out for no justifiable reason, citing administrative convenience as a reason. I accordingly hold that the petitoenr is entitled to succeeed.