Kerala High Court
Shaji S vs Supplyco on 17 March, 2022
WP(C).22468/21 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN
THURSDAY, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 26TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 22468 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:
SHAJI S.,
AGED 32 YEARS
S/O. SULAIMANKUNJU, JUNIOR ASSISTANT, SUPPLYCO TALUK
DEPOT, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA, RESIDENCE AT
'PUTHUKKATTU' KADATHOOR, K.S. PURAM P.O,
KARUNAGAPPILLY, QUILON 690 544, PHONE 701251775.
BY ADVS.
ELVIN PETER P.J.
K.R.GANESH
GOURI BALAGOPAL
ABHIJITH.K.ANIRUDHAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SUPPLYCO,
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
MAVELIBHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 024.
2 REGIONAL MANAGER,
SUPPLYCO, MAVELIBHAVAN, GANDHI NAGAR, KOCHI 682 024.
3 THE DEPOT MANAGER,
SUPPLYCO, HARIPPAD-690 514
BY ADV SMT.MOLLY JACOB,SC,SUPPLYCO
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. MOLLY JACOB-SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
15.03.2022, THE COURT ON 17.3.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).22468/21 2
V.G.ARUN, J.
-----------------------------------------------
W.P(C).No. 22468 of 2021
-----------------------------------------------
Dated this the 17th day of March, 2022
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Karunagappilly is
working as Junior Assistant in the Supplyco. While the petitioner was
working at the Supplyco Taluk Depot, Karunagappally, he was
transferred to the Supplyco Taluk Depot, Harippad as per Exhibit P1
order dated 18.5.2021. Pursuant to Exhibit P1 the petitioner joined
duty at Harippad on 21.5.2021. Before the petitioner could complete
four months at Harippad, he was served to the Cheriyanad NFSA
Godown under the Chengannur Depot vide Exhibit P2 order dated
12.10.2021. Consequently, the petitioner was issued with Exhibit P3
proceedings of the 3rd respondent, requiring him to hand over charge
on 13.10.2021 itself. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash
Exhibits P2 and P3 and for a direction to respondents 2 and 3 to allow
the petitioner to continue as Junior Assistant at the Maveli Store,
Velanchira, Harippad
2. Heard Advocates K.R.Ganesh for the petitioner and Moly
Jacob for the respondents.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the
impugned orders are ex facie illegal, having been issued in violation
of the transfer guidelines and being tainted with mala fides. It is
submitted that as per the transfer guidelines, a Sales Assistant can
continue at his station for three years. As against this, the petitioner
is sought to be transferred within four months. According to the
learned counsel, there is no contingency or emergent situation
warranting immediate transfer of the petitioner. The alleged reason
of there being no sufficient staff at the Chengannur Depot is factually
incorrect. Even if such reason is taken to be true, there are other
employees with longer tenure at the Haripad Depot, who are liable to
be transferred before the petitioner. Referring to Exhibit R2(a) letter
issued by the Manager, Chengannur Depot, it is contended that after
receipt of the said letter pointing out dearth of staff at Chengannur,
the respondents had issued Exhibit P5 proceedings by which
Assistant Salesmen/women were provisionally appointed as Junior
Assistants. According to the learned counsel, the problem due to lack
of staff at Chengannur Depot could have been solved by posting the
persons appointed under Exhibit P5 at Chengannur. It is submitted
that the petitioner's transfer is motivated by mala fides and is at the
instance of rival Union leaders. Learned counsel contended that even
if the transfer policy has no statutory force, the 1 st respondent having
framed the policy, employees like the petitioner will harbour a
legitimate expectation that the policy would be given due weightage.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents referred to
Exhibit R2(a) to submit that the Depot Manager, Chengannur had
pointed out the requirement of staff at the NFSA Godown. While the
request was pending consideration, the Officer-in-Charge at the NFSA
Godown, who was on leave on 10.10.2021, died while undergoing
treatment. It is such an emergent situation and in public interest that
the respondent had transferred the petitioner to the NFSA Godown,
taking into account his efficiency and experience and with intent to
regulate the proceedings at the godown and re-start the interrupted
stock movement. Apart from the petitioner, other employees were
transferred to the NFSA Godown. Therefore the allegation of mala
fides is without substance.
5. Indisputably, the employer is vested with the authority to
transfer an employee to suit the requirement of the establishment.
The scope for interference of such administrative action in exercise
of power of judicial review, is minimal. Herein, the respondents have
been able to demonstrate that the petitioner was transferred for
meeting a contingency that had suddenly arisen and in keeping in
view the best interest of the establishment. In such circumstances,
the petitioner cannot harp on the clause in the transfer guidelines
providing for three year tenure at one station. It is settled law that
transfer guidelines have no statutory force and cannot be legally
enforced. At the same time, I find some force in the submission
regarding hardship caused to the petitioner by reason of his transfer
within four months of joining at Haripad. The petitioner is hence
permitted to bring his grievance to the notice of the authority during
the next general transfer or even earlier, if there are sufficient
reasons.
In the result, the writ petition is dismissed, reserving the
petitioner's right to make an application for transfer during the
general transfer of 2022 and even earlier, if there are any special
circumstances.
Sd/-
V.G.ARUN, JUDGE
vgs
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 22468/2021
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE PHOTO COPY OF THE ORDER DATED
18.5.2021 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.10.2021
ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.10.2021
ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
13.10.2021 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P5 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO D 10
15846/2021 DATED 30.0.2021 OF THE IST
RESPONDENT
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R2(A) TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 03/09/2021
ABOUT THE DEARTH OF THE STAFF IN THE
CHENGANNOOR DEPOT
