Kerala High Court
Laiby V. Elizabeth vs The Director, Regional Cancer ... on 26 May, 2021
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MAY 2021 / 5TH JYAISHTA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 9330 OF 2021
PETITIONERS:
LAIBY V. ELIZABETH
0
AGED 37 YEARS
W/O.FR.DR.ELIZAS PAUL, STAFF NURSE (E CODE 5661),
EARLY CANCER DETECTION CENTRE (ECDC), KALOOR,
COCHIN-682 017, RESIDING AT THURUTHEL HOUSE,
KADACKANAD P.O., KOLENCHERRY-682 311.
BY ADVS.
ELVIN PETER P.J.
SMT.KAIMAL PRIYA PADMANABHA
SRI.K.R.GANESH
SMT.GOURI BALAGOPAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DIRECTOR, REGIONAL CANCER CENTRE (RCC),
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 011.
2 THE OFFICER IN CHARGE,
EARLY CANCER DETECTION CENTRE (ECDC), KALOOR,
ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-686 017.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON 26.5.2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
2
ANU SIVARAMAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C).No.9330 of 2021
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 26th day of May, 2021
JUDGMENT
1. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-
"i)Issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading to
Exhibits P6 & P10 order and quash the same.
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate direction or
order, directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as
Staff Nurse at ECDC, Ernakulam.
iii)Declare that the action of the respondents in
reverting/transferring back the petitioner to RCC,
Thiruvananthapuram is absolutely illegal, unfair, arbitrary,
unreasonable and violative of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution
of India."
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner had requested a transfer to ECDC, Ernakulam to
continue infertility treatment at the Sabine Hospital,
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
Muvattupuzha. The same was allowed and the petitioner was
continuing at Ernakulam. Now, the petitioner is undergoing
treatment at CIMAR hospital, Edappally. However, Exhibit P6
order was issued transferring the petitioner from ECDC,
Ernakulam back to RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. The same was
challenged before this Court and by Exhibit P9 judgment, this
Court had directed the petitioner to file a representation
before the Grievances Redressal Cell. It is submitted that the
cell, after hearing the petitioner, rejected her request. The 1 st
respondent, as per Exhibit P10 directed the petitioner to
resume duty at RCC, Thiruvananthapuram immediately.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has to continue at the present station for some time
for continuation of her treatment and that the factual aspects
of the matter, as disclosed from Exhibit P1 representation, has
not been considered by the respondents. It is further
submitted that there are several senior staff nurses who had
been granted posting at ECDC, Ernakulam, on their own
request, pursuant to the orders issued by the 1 st respondent. It
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
is further submitted that a tenure of three years has been
fixed for nurses to continue at a station and the insistence in
the petitioner's case alone that she should report for duty to
Thiruvananthapuram immediately is completely unwarranted.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the
respondent as responsible employer is duty bound to consider
the grievances raised by the petitioner as well and Exhibit P10
order, which does not refer to her complaints is completely
illegal and without authority of law.
6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, on
instructions, would submit that the petitioner had been
granted a transfer to Ernakulam specifically on on her own
request for a period of one year. The petitioner had been
continuing at Ernakulam from 29.1.2019 on wards and has
absolutely no right to insist that she should be permitted to
continue in Ernakulam. Further, it is submitted that it is due
to extreme administrative urgency that the petitioner was
required to report for duty at Thiruvananthapuram and that
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
this Court may not interdict the transfer of an employee, who
is urgently required to carry out duties at a specific station as
is evident from Exhibit P10. It is further submitted that all
contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered in
Exhibit P10.
7. Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I
am of the opinion that the petitioner, who was granted a
compassionate posting to Ernakulam on her own request
cannot insist that she should be permitted to continue at the
said station till it is convenient for her to be posted back to
Thiruvananthapuram. Transfer is an incidence of service and
the petitioner cannot insist that she should be permitted to
continue in a specific station. It appears from Exhibit P10
order that the contentions raised by the petitioner had been
considered.
In the above factual situation, I am of the opinion that the
prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. The
writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
However, the period from 9.4.2021 to the date of this
judgment shall be treated as duty for all purposes in view of
the fact that the petitioner had been directed to be retained at
Ernakulam.
Sd/-
Anu Sivaraman, Judge
sj
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9330/2021
ANNEXURE/EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 10.04.2018.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RTI REPLY
NO.RIA/153/2018/ADMIN.VI/RCC DATED
26.10.2018 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC
INFORMATION OFFICER, RCC.
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.800/TRANSFER/ECDC.EKM./ADMN.VI/2018/R
CC DATED 29.01.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE
DATED 10.02.2021 ISSUED BY DR.BETTY JOHN
FERNS AT CIMAR HOSPITAL, EDAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPIES OF THE MEDICAL PROSCRIPTIONS
DATED 15.12.2020, 02.01.2021,
12.01.2021, 16.01.2021, 19.01.2021 AND
30.01.2021 ISSUED BY CIMAR HOSPITAL,
EDAPPALLY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.800/TRANSFER/ECDC.EKM/AFMN.VI/2017/RC
C DATED 03.02.2021 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE
1ST RESPONDENT DATED 15.02.2021 IN WP(C0
NO.3707/2021.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE CONTAINING THE
STATISTICS OF THE ACTIVITIES DONE IN
ECDC, ERNAKULAM, DOWNLOADED FROM THE
OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF RCC.
W.P.(C).No.9330/2021
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
26.02.2021 IN WPC NO.3707/2021 OF THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER
NO.RCC/195/2021ADMNS6 DATED 06.04.2021
ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
