Byju K.C vs The Board Of Directors Of The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 966 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

     MONDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 21TH POUSHA, 1942

                         WP(C).No.689 OF 2021


PETITIONER:

               BYJU K.C
               AGED 48 YEARS
               AREA SALES MANAGR,
               RAIDCO KERALA LTD,
               TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR,
               RESIDING AT VIPANCHIKA,
               KOLOLAM,
               EDAYANNUR P.O,
               KANNUR DISTRICT.

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR
               SRI.ARJUN RAGHAVAN

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE REGIONAL AGRO
               INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
               CO-OPERATIVE OF KERALA LTD, NO. C 361(RAIDCO,
               KERALA),
               REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN,
               RAIDCO TOWER,
               SPCA ROAD,
               PB NO. 407,
               KANNUR-670 002

      2        THE REGIONAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CO-OPERATIVE
               OF KERALA LTD. NO. C. 361,
               (RAIDCO, KERALA),
               REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               RAIDCO TOWER,
               SPCA ROAD,
               PB NO. 407,
               KANNUR-670 002


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
11.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.689 OF 2021

                                       2




                                 JUDGMENT

Dated this the 11th day of January 2021

The petitioner herein, who is the employee of

the second respondent was posted as Area Sales

Manager of Taliparamba by Ext.P4 order with

jurisdiction of Taliparamba and Payyannur branches.

He has been transferred as Area Sales Manager

Kozhikode with jurisdiction of Perambra and Mukkom

branches with headquarters at Perambra branch by a

composite order transferring 15 other persons.

Exhibit.P5 representation has been submitted by him

stating that, he was worked in Taliparamba branch

only for about three and a half months and transfer

during this period of pandemic will cause great

inconvenience and hardship to him. He sought for

interfering in the transfer order. Ext.P5

representation was submitted but it has not been

disposed of.

WP(C).No.689 OF 2021

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Having regard to the nature of reliefs sought, I am

not inclined to issue notice to respondent Nos. 1

and 2. Writ petition itself is disposed of with a

direction to the respondent No.1 to take up and

consider Ext.P5 representation as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of three

weeks from the date of production of a copy of this

judgment.

Sd/-

                                                  SUNIL THOMAS
                                                           JUDGE




Jms




                        //True Copy//       P.A to Judge
 WP(C).No.689 OF 2021






                           APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1             A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

G2/EST/T&P/04/2020-21 DATED 19.06.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM DATED 29.07.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 15203 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.08.2020 IN W.P.C NO. 15203 OF 2020.

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING NO. G2/E ST/T & P/08/2020-21 DATED 28.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01.01.2021 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

//True Copy// P.A to Judge