Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 3796 Ker
Judgement Date : 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
WP(C).No.22232 OF 2020(D)
PETITIONER:
JIBIN C.S., EMPLOYEES CODE NO 1054307,
OVERSEER (ELECTRICAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
LTD, CHERAI SECTION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM, PIN-
683 513, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO KALADY
ELECTRICAL SECTION).
SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
SMT.N.SANTHA
SRI.V.VARGHESE
SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
SRI.S.A.ANAND
SMT.K.N.REMYA
SMT.L.ANNAPOORNA
SHRI.VISHNU V.K.
KUM.ABHIRAMI K. UDAY
SHRI.KURUVILLA SABU CHRISTY
RESPONDENTS:
1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM,
PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 004.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 004.
3 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VYDYUTHI
BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695 004.
4 UDADEVOS M.G,
EMPLOYEE CODE 1053432, OVERSEER (ELECTRICAL),
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, CHERANALLOOR
ELECTRICAL SECTION, ERNAKULAM, PIN-683 544, (UNDER
ORDERS OF TRANSFER TO CHERAI ELECTRICAL SECTION)
SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.22232 OF 2020(D)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of February 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning
Ext.P5 order to the extent to which it has transferred him from
the Cherai Electrical Station to Kalady Electrical Section. The
petitioner says that the order impugned is illegal since he
joined his present station only on 30.09.2020 and that the
impugned transfer has been issued less than a period of one
month thereafter. He asserts that his transfer is not guided by
exigencies in service or in public interest and that it is only to
favour the fourth respondent, who does not have any
preferential claim over him in the matter of transfer. The
petitioner, therefore, prays that Ext.P5 be set aside.
2. In response to the submissions of Sri.Peter Jose
Christo - the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned
standing counsel for the KSEB - Sri.M.K.Thankappan
submitted that a counter affidavit has been filed on record,
wherein, the reasons for the petitioner's transfer has been
narrated. The learned standing counsel submitted that if the
petitioner is willing to relinquish his promotion subject to WP(C).No.22232 OF 2020(D)
Rules, then the KSEB is willing to reconsider his transfer, but
that this will have to be done by the petitioner in the manner
prescribed by the Regulations. The learned standing counsel,
therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
3. When I consider the rival submissions as afore, the
fact remains that the petitioner's specific case is that he has
been transferred through Ext.P5 less than a month after he
was placed in his domicile station. Ext.P5 order does not say
why the petitioner has been transferred, but it has been
chosen to be explained through the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the KSEB, that this is consequent to his promotion.
This averment of the KSEB, however, is sternly opposed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner saying that his client was
not moved to the present station consequent to the promotion
but much later thereafter.
4. In any event of the matter, I notice that this Court had
granted an interim order against the relieving of the petitioner
as early as on 19.10.2020 and it has been over three months
since the said order is still in force.
5. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the petitioner's
grievances must be first considered by the KSEB, before his
transfer can be effected.
WP(C).No.22232 OF 2020(D)
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition,
granting liberty to the petitioner to make a representation
against Ext.P5 to the extent to which it transfers him and if
this is done within a period of two weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this judgment, the same shall be
considered by the competent Authority of the KSEB, after
affording him an opportunity of being heard - either physically
or through video conferencing - thus culminating in an
appropriate decision thereon, as expeditiously as is possible,
Needless to say, until such time as the afore exercise is
completed and the resultant order communicated to the
petitioner, all action pursuant to Ext.P5, to the extent to which
it relates to the petitioner, shall remain deferred.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE WP(C).No.22232 OF 2020(D)
APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 10.6.2019 ISSUED BY THE CONSULTANT ORTHO SURGEON OF DISTRICT HOSPITAL, ALUVA
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 17.1.2005 ISSUED BY DR.ASHOK RAJ KAUL, CONSULTANT PLASTIC SURGEON, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY DATED 20.10.2005 ISSUED BY Dr.ASHOK RAJ KAUL, CONSULTANT PLASTIC SURGEON, MEDICAL TRUST HOSPITAL, M.G ROAD, KOCHI
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO EB4(B)/OVER(ELE/GT/2020 DATED 4.9.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF PROCEEDINGS NO EB4(B)/OVR(ELE)/GRIEVANCE/2020 DATED 26.10.2020 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE GRIEVANCE APPLICATION NO.EB1/GT2019/GRIEVANCE/2019-20/282 DATED 04.06.2019 ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!