T.S.Pravenn vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12127 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
    THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 1ST POUSHA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 41624 OF 2022
PETITIONERS:

    1     T.S.PRAVENN, AGED 38 YEARS
          S/O T.K.SASI, THANNIKKAL HOUSE,
          KUMBALANGI P.O., KOCHI 682 007.

    2     V.K.SUNIL, AGED 50 YEARS
          S/O KARUNAKARAN, VADAKKDATH HOUSE,
          IRUMPANAM P.O., THRIPUNITHURA, PIN-682 309.

    3     C.S.BIJU, AGED 51 YEARS
          S/O. .C.K.SASI, PANIKKASSERIYIL HOUSE,
          SOUTH PARAVOOR P.O., KOCHI 682 307.

    4     S.S. SAJEEV, AGED 46 YEARS
          S/O SOMAN, SOMNIVAS, ERAMALLOOR P.O.,
          CHERTHALA-688 537

          BY ADV SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL


RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION ,
          REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING
          DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

    2     THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.

    3     THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          ERNAKULAM-682 011.


          SRI.DEEPU THANKAN -SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
22.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WPC 41624/22
                                             2

                                JUDGMENT

The petitioners allege that they have been transferred

frequently by the respondent - Kerala State Road Transport

Corporation (KSRTC), solely because they are experienced Drivers.

2. However, Sri.Deepu Thankan - learned Standing Counsel

for the KSRTC, responded to the afore submission, made by

Sri.Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal - learned counsel for the petitioners,

saying that petitioners have not been frequently transferred, but

that when they were working in Parur and Aleppey, they were put

on working arrangement to Ernakulam as evident from Ext.P2; and

that, thereafter, they were transferred to Kozhikode, through

Ext.P4, since the Low Floor Bus fleet operates only from there and

Trivandrum. He showed me that, thereafter, through Ext.P5, the

petitioners were given special 'Sabarimala duty', for which purpose,

they were asked to come to Ernakulam and report; and that since

they have now completed such duty, as evident from Ext.P6, the

3rd respondent - District Transport Officer asked them to report

back to Kozhikode. He explained that this cannot be seen to be a WPC 41624/22

transfer at all and therefore, that the allegations of the petitioners

are without any basis.

3. In reply, Sri.Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal submitted that, as

manifest from Ext.P5, the petitioners were asked to report to

Ernakulam from Kozhikode and there have been no orders asking

them to report back to Kozhikode thereafter. He explained that his

clients have completed their 'Sabarimala duty' and hence, ought to

have been accommodated at Ernakulam, based on Ext.P5.

4. When I consider the afore submissions, it is clear that

the petitioners are relying upon the fact that the KSRTC has not

made any provision consequent to Ext.P5, with respect to their

station. Prima facie, going by Ext.P5, the petitioners were asked to

report to Ernakulam, on a special duty for 'Sabarimala' season.

What happens next has not been mentioned therein. To such

extent, the petitioners are justified in having approached this Court.

5. That apart, it is the specific case of the petitioners that

they alone are now being transferred so frequently, though there

are others who have obtained sufficient training and continuing in

Ernakulam itself.

WPC 41624/22

6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that these aspects will

have to be considered by the competent Authority of the KSRTC,

before the petitioners can be asked to report to a particular station.

7. Sri.Deepu Thankan - learned Standing Counsel for the

KSRTC, submitted that the competent Authority to do so is the

Executive Director of Administration (KSRTC).

In the afore circumstances, I direct the petitioners to mark

appearance before the Executive Director of Administration (KSRTC)

at 11 A.M. on 26.12.2023; on which day, said Authority will hear

them and consider their plea, including that there are various other

trained Drivers still continuing in Ernakulam; and then issue an

apposite order, posting them appropriately, which shall be done

within a period of one week thereafter.

Until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the

resultant order communicated to the petitioners, they will be

allowed to continue at Ernakulam, based on Ext.P5.

Sd/-

RR                                       DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
                                                JUDGE
 WPC 41624/22


                APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41624/2022

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.

PL4/224/2021/KM. DATED 13-10-2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P2          THUE COPY OF THE OLDER VIDE
                    NO.PL016/21/NPR DATED 02 11 2021.
Exhibit P3          TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P

L3/2176/2001ALP DATE 12-11-2021 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE NO.PL1/3457/22/EKM DATED 05 -07 -2022 ISSUED BY THE 3 RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.B6/5557/2022/DOKKAD DATED 11-11-2022. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SOPBA -

014/2022- 23 DATED 06-12-2022