Kerala High Court
Ouseph M.E vs Kerala Water Authority on 5 October, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 / 13TH ASWINA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 18238 OF 2021
PETITIONER:
OUSEPH M.E
AGED 54 YEARS
S/O.M.P.ESTHAPAN, MOOTHEDAN HOUSE, KOOVAPADY P.O.,
PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-68354, ASST.EXECUTIVE
ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH SUB DIVISION, KERALA WATER
AUTHORITY, PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683543.
(UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER).
BY ADVS.
GEORGE MATHEW
M.D.SASIKUMARAN
PRAVEEN S.
SUNIL KUMAR A.G
DIPU JAMES
MATHEW K.T.
K.V.GEORGE
STEPHY K REGI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER
HRD & GENERAL, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN,
VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033.
3 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
P.H.DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, ALUVA-680020.
4 MOLLY VARGHESE,
AGED 55 YEARS
W/O.KUNJAPPAN, NEETINKARA, VELOOR, KARIMUGAL P.O.,
682303, ERNAKULAM, WORKING AS ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
OFFICE OF CHIEF ENGINEER (NR) MALAPARAMPA, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT-673009. (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER).
BY ADVS.
SHRI.P.BENJAMIN PAUL, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY
WPC No.18238/2021 2
VARUN C.VIJAY
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 30.09.2021, THE COURT ON 5/10/2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WPC No.18238/2021 3
JUDGMENT
The writ petitioner,who is an Assistant Executive Engineer in
Kerala Water Authority, challenges the order passed by the second
respondent transferring him from his present office at the Public Health Sub
Division, Perumbavoor to Project Division Kannur, by Ext.P2 order of
Transfer. The grievance of the petitioner is that, at the time of general
transfer, he was not transferred, as evident from Ext.P1. However, in the
midst of the year, he has been transferred to a distant place, to accommodate
the 4th respondent, who has been recently promoted as the Assistant
Engineer. She is now proposed to be posted at Perumbavur where the
petitioner is at present working. According to the petitioner, he is senior in
service to the 4th respondent and is to retire on 31/5/2024. His place of
residence is at Ernakulam and had worked at various places in Idukki District
in 1994 and thereafter, at Painavu in Idukki from 2007 to 2014. It was
alleged that the transfer was in violation of all norms of procedure and was
actuated by mala fides.
2. At the time of admission, an interim stay of transfer was granted.
The Water Authority and the 4th respondent have appeared, contested the
proceedings and filed separate counter affidavits.
3. In the counter affidavit filed by the Water Authority, it was contended
that transfer was effected in strict compliance with the Rules and that the 4 th
respondent, had submitted a request for transfer to her native place raising
health issues, as well as that she was due to retire within seven months in
March 2022. It was also stated that the benefit of posting at Home Station is
extended only to persons who have less than two years of service left. The
petitioner is due to retire only in May 2024, and hence not entitled for the
benefit. Further, fourth respondent being a lady, was accommodated near to
her home station, as a part of the general policy of the Water Authority.
However, the Assistant Executive Engineers are engaged in supervisory and
managerial functions and considering their less number, strict adherence to
norms may not always be possible, while allotting post to suitable incumbents.
The petitioner has worked only in two adjoining districts.
4. The 4th respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit, wherein it was
contended that Ext.P1 was not a general transfer order, but was only a
promotion order. By virtue of Ext.P1, few persons were promoted as AEE
and posted at different places. The petitioner, who belongs to Ernakulam
District, was posted at Kozhikode. Hence, she submitted Ext.R4(a)
representation pointing out that she has only seven months to retire and was
suffering from various ailments. Long distant travel was not advisable to her.
Her mother was also seriously laid up and hence she sought for posting at
Perumbavur. This was considered and by Ext.P2 transfer order, she was
posted at Perumbavur. She got relieved on 7/9/2021. In the meanwhile, the
writ petition was filed and stay was obtained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner strongly attributed mala
fides , contending that the 4th respondent was unduly favoured by giving her
posting suitable and convenient, that too , within a short period of her
promotion. The petitioner also claimed the benefit that he was due to retire in
2024. However, it is pertinent to note that he is not entitled to claim for home
station or home district posting since he has more than two years of service
left. On the other hand, the 4 th respondent has only seven months to retire.
The Water Authority has given cogent reasons to explain why she was
preferred as against the petitioner. No Rule violation is brought out except a
vague allegation of mala fides. However, there is nothing on record to
establish it.
6. The learned counsel for the 4th respondent, to buttress his
arguments, relied on the decision reported in Gujarat Electricity Board and
Another v. Atmaram Sungomal Poshani (1989) 2 SCC 602), wherein it
was held that transfer of an employee was an incident of service and
employee has no right to insist that he/she should be posted at a particular
place and further that transfer cannot be evaded merely on ground of
pendency of representation and difficulties. In Union of India & Others v.
S.L.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357), the Supreme Court had held that unless the
transfer order is mala fide or made in violation of statutory Rule, provisions of
Law, the court/Tribunal cannot interfere. The learned counsel also relied on
the decision reported in State of M.P. & another v. S.S.Kourav & Others
(1995) 3 SCC 270) to contend that the hardship caused to the employee due
to the transfer cannot be a ground for judicial review of the transfer order.
Having evaluated the entire facts in the above perspective, I find no
reason to interfere in the transfer order. I find no merit in the writ petition and
accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Since the respondent was relived
on 7/9/2021, the Water Authority shall take necessary steps to regularise her
absence from duty from the period 7/9/2021 till date.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
Judge
dpk
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18238/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.3568/E2(A)/2020/KWA
DATED 03.08.2021 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.3568/E2(A)/2020/KWA
DATED 06.09.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R4(a) TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF
CHARGE DATED 7.09.2021
Exhibit R4(b) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.09.2021
SUBMITTED BY 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE CHIEF
ENGINEER (HRD & GL) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
