Kerala High Court

Suresh Kumar J.A vs The Kerala State Electricity Board ... on 25 October, 2024

Author: Murali Purushothaman

Bench: Murali Purushothaman

                                                2024:KER:79518

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN

FRIDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2024 / 3RD KARTHIKA, 1946

                   WP(C) NO. 28337 OF 2024

PETITIONER:

           SURESH KUMAR J.A
           AGED 50 YEARS
           S/O. G. APPUKUTTAN NAIR,
           PRESENTLY WORKING AS OVERSEER AT ELECTRICAL
           SECTION OFFICE AT KANIYAPURAM,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
           PRESENTLY RESIDING AT JAYA BHAVAN,
           PURAVOORKONAM, KARAKULAM P.O.,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
           PIN - 695 564.

           BY ADVS.
           M.KIRANLAL
           T.S.SARATH
           R.RAJESH (VARKALA)
           MANU RAMACHANDRAN
           SAMEER M NAIR
           HARISANKAR R
           SAILAKSHMI MENON
           SMT.AKHILA B.




RESPONDENTS:

    1      THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
           (KSEB)
           REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHAIRMAN,
           VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,
           THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.
    2      THE MANAGING DIRECTOR & CHAIRMAN
           KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
           VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
           PIN - 695 004.
                                                                  2024:KER:79518
WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024
                                        2

          3       THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM)
                  KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED,
                  VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN,
                  THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 004.

                  SRI. K.S ANIL - SC


              THIS   WRIT   PETITION    (CIVIL)      HAVING    COME   UP    FOR
      ADMISSION      ON   25.10.2024,       THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY
      DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2024:KER:79518
WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024
                                 3



                              JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as an Overseer in

the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited (Board)

at Electrical Section, Kaniyapuram,

Thiruvananthapuram District. The petitioner

states that he is a native of Thiruvananthapuram

and his wife is suffering from Primary Generalized

Epilepsy, a chronic neurological disorder and he is

entitled for protection from transfer under Clause

VII (g) of Ext.P2 transfer guidelines issued by the

Board. His previous transfers from the present

station were interfered with by this Court by

Exts.P3 and P8 orders taking note of the

protection clause in the transfer guidelines.

2. Apprehending transfer from the present 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

station in violation of the transfer protection

clause the petitioner submitted an application

before the Grievance portal of the 3rd respondent.

He sought for protection from transfer on the

ground of illness of his wife and produced Ext.P10

medical certificate to substantiate his claim. The

said request has been rejected on the ground that

'document not sufficient to substantiate the

claim', as could be seen from Ext.P9.

3. The petitioner states that, despite his

genuine plea for protection from transfer, he has

been transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to

Rajakumari Electrical Section in Idukki District by

Ext.P11 order. Challenging Exts.P9 and P11, the

petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. This Court, by order dated 08.08.2024

directed to maintain status quo as regards the 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

posting of the petitioner. On the basis of the said

order, the petitioner is continuing at

Thiruvananthapuram.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed by

respondents 1 to 3. It is stated that the petitioner

is continuing at Thiruvananthapuram for more

than 5 years and 10 months. It is further stated

that to avail protection from transfer vide Clause

VII, valid certificates from competent authorities

shall be uploaded in the HRIS software and the

original shall be attached to the application to the

concerned Unit. Further, paragraph Nos.8 to 10

of the counter affidavit read as follows:-

"8 When an employee applies for transfer protection based on a medical claim, there are two ways to submit the application. One is through the 'Protection clause' (VII) and the other is through the 'Transfer clause' (VI). A person who is in the 'Transfer Out' category should apply through the Protection clause to avoid being transferred out of their domicile division. Only by 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

applying in that manner, he will be protected from transfer under the Transfer Guidelines. If a person wishes a transfer from their current workplace to another location, they should apply through the selection of 'Transfer clause' to receive priority for that transfer. Here the petitioner did not apply for protection through the 'Protection clause'. An applicant who applies for protection from transfer will only be considered to be retained at the domicile station.

9. It is submitted that the applicant has submitted Application for Transfer, attaching medical certificate for illness of his wife, under wrong transfer clause but nothing adverse happened out of this. One of the most important points to be noted is that the medical certificate he submitted certifying his wife was suffering from Primary Generalized Epilepsy Disease. The claim was rejected as documents submitted were insufficient to substantiate the claim under Clause Wife Illness of employees. Applications suffering from similar ailment are not considered for exemption from transfer. Moreover, the certificate does not mention anything about the present condition of the disease. It is only said that the treatment continues. If a certificate of a particular gravity or disease is considered, all similar certificates would need to be considered and, it will not be able to post the required staff at all locations and will severely affect the operations of the offices of KSEBL.

10. There were 131 eligible requests for transfer to Thiruvananthapuram district but due to lack of available vacancies only 85 Overseers (Ele) were given transfer to Thiruvananthapuram and the request of remaining 46 applicants could not be considered for want of sufficient vacancies. They 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

are kept in queue waiting vacancy in the station. Therefore, it was decided to transfer 54 people from Thiruvananthapuram district to outside the district to make way for eligible employees from outside the district to be transferred to Thiruvananthapuram. Accordingly, 25 senior employees from Thiruvananthapuram were transferred to Idukki, 28 employees to Pathanamthitta district, and one female employee to Ernakulam district. The petitioner is among those who were transferred out of the district. If all medical certificates submitted are considered leniently and protection is granted from transfer, eligible employees outside the district will not be able to enter their own district. The number of employees transferred out to the district will be reduced further from 54 Nos. Therefore, the KSEB Board considers the severity of the disease while approving medical claims."

6. Since the respondents state that the

petitioner did not apply for protection through the

protection clause and in terms of the guidelines,

it will be open to the petitioner to submit a

representation along with medical certificates and

other relevant documents claiming the benefit of

clause VII (g) of Ext.P2 transfer guidelines. If the

petitioner makes such a representation within 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment, the 3rd respondent shall consider

the same and pass orders, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of the

representation. Till orders are passed as above,

the interim order passed by this Court on

08.08.2024 shall continue.

The writ petition is disposed of with the

above direction.

Sd/-

MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE

SPR 2024:KER:79518 WP(C) NO.28337 OF 2024

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR. M. SHAFEEQUE OF COSMOPOLITAN HOSPITALS PVT. LTD., PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, DATED 20-04-2023, CERTIFYING THE PETITIONER'S WIFE'S CHRONIC NEUROLOGICAL DISORDER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE KSEBL- GUIDELINES FOR ONLINE GENERAL TRANSFER OF WORKMEN, 2022, DATED 07-05- 2022.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 25- 07-2022 IN WPC NO. 24069 OF 2022.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12-10-2022, PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT DATED 26-06- 2023, OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION FROM TRANSFER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION DATED 20-04- 2023, FOR TRANSFER TO OTHER OFFICES OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WITHIN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT, DATED 01-07-2023, WHEREBY THE PETITIONER WAS ORDERED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO KONDOTTY ELECTRICAL SECTION IN MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED IN W.P(C) NO.21682 OF 2023 DATED 24.08.2023. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SCREENSHOT DATED 29-07- 2024, SHOWING STATUS OF THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION FROM TRANSFER. EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 11-06-2024.