Kerala High Court
Madhusoodhanan Nair vs The Air India Engineering ... on 25 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 4TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.6635 OF 2021(D)
PETITIONER:
MADHUSOODHANAN NAIR, AGED 55 YEARS
SR.MASTER TECHNICIAN, SAP NO.88006548, LINE
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 007.
SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AIR INDIA ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AIRLINES HOUSE,
113, GURUDWARA RAKAB GANJ ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 001.
2 CHIEF MAINTENANCE MANAGER
AIESL-MRO, TRIVANDRUM-695 007.
3 THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
AIR INDIA ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED,
AIRLINES HOUSE, 113, GURUDWARA RAKAB GANJ ROAD,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
SRI. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
25.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No.6635 OF 2021(D)
2
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 25th day of March 2021
The petitioner has approached this Court impugning his
transfer effected through Ext.P1, as also the subsequent
orders issued by the first respondent rejecting his
representation against it, namely Exts.P4 and P5. The
petitioner says that he had earlier approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.3388/2021 against his transfer, which had
been disposed of directing the third respondent - Chief
Executive Officer (CEO) to consider his representation against
the transfer, but that instead of the second respondent - Chief
Maintenance Manager issued Exts.P4 and P5, which are,
therefore, untenable in law. The petitioner, therefore, prays
that Exts.P1, P4 and P5 be set aside.
2. In response, Smt.Pooja Menon, the learned counsel for
the respondents, submitted that Exts.P4 and P5 have been
withdrawn acceding to the petitioner's contention that it has
been issued by an Authority different from the one who has
directed to do so through Ext.P3 judgment; and that a fresh
hearing had been scheduled by the third respondent - Chief
Executive Officer, which was, in fact, concluded this morning.
WP(C).No.6635 OF 2021(D)
She submitted that the CEO will, therefore, issue a fresh
order in terms of Ext.P3 judgment without any further delay.
3. When I consider the submissions made on behalf of
the respondents by Smt.Pooja Menon as afore, it is clear that
the petitioner would not require any further orders in this writ
petition because Exts.P4 and P5 have already been withdrawn
and the third respondent is now issuing a fresh order in terms
of the directions in Ext.P3 judgment.
In the afore circumstances, recording the submissions of
Smt.Pooja Menon as afore, I close this writ petition; however,
extending the interim order granted by this Court until such
time as the representation is disposed of by the CEO and the
order communicated to the petitioner, in the address shown in
this writ petition, through registered post with AD.
Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
Stu JUDGE
WP(C).No.6635 OF 2021(D)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2021 ISSUED BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 30.1.2021
ADDRESSED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 3388 OF 2021 DATED
10.2.2021 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
10.3.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
