Kerala High Court
M.V Eldho vs The Chairperson And Managing Director, ... on 8 April, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:31751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 8
TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947
WA NO. 254 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.01.2025 IN WP(C) NO.46461 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN WP(C):
M.V ELDHO,
AGED 47 YEARS,
S/O M.P. VARKEY, LDC-NCB ID NO.10552 PRESENTLY WORKING
AT FL - 1 SHOP NO. 7015, PADIVATTOM-EDAPPALLY TOLL,
RESIDING AT MALPPAN HOUSE, THURUTHISSERY, MEKKAD P.O,
PIN - 683589.
BY ADVS.
C.S.AJITH PRAKASH
ANCY THANKACHAN
BABU M.
KRISHNENDU.D
T.K.DEVARAJAN
XAVIER K.K.
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C):
1 THE CHAIRPERSON AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD.,
BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION),
KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD., BEVCO TOWER, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O,
PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033.
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:31751
3 THE WAREHOUSE MANAGER,
FL9 WAREHOUSE, KADAVANTHARA ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682020.
4 KERALA STATE BEVERAGES (MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING)
CORPORATION LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR BEVCO TOWER,
VIKAS BHAVAN P.O, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695033.
SRI. NAVEEN T., SC, KERALA STATE BEVERAGES
(MANUFACTURING AND MARKETING) CORPORATION LTD.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:31751
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellant is working as a Lower Division Clerk in FL 01
7015 retail outlet of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing
and Marketing) Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the
'KSBC') at Padivattom near Edappally. By Ext.P22 proceedings of
the 1st respondent dated 17.12.2024, he was transferred to
Gandhinagar shop located at Mulavukad. By the Judgment dated
09.01.2025 in W.P.(C)No.46461 of 2024, the writ petition filed by
the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging Ext.P22 transfer order was dismissed by the learned
Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed this writ appeal
under Section 5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.
2. Going by the averments in the writ petition, the
appellant is an erstwhile Abkari worker, absorbed in KSBC in the
year 2011. Now the post is redesignated as LDC-NCB. After
became permanent, he faced frequent transfers. At present he is
working in FL 01 Shop 7015 at Padivattom near Edappally. As per
Ext. P1 circular dated 20.12.2017 issued by the 1st respondent, in
the event of any stock variation in any FL-1 shop, the liability will
be apportioned among the staff in that particular shop. The
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:31751
appellant challenged such liability fixation while working in
different shops by filing in W.P.(C) Nos. 34429/2019 and
16966/2021 before this Court. While so, the Management started
obtaining signature of the employees after the stock verification.
The appellant objected this practice on the ground that it will affect
the pending issue before this Court. Then within a short period,
appellant was transferred from Nedumbassery shop to Padivattom
shop. The appellant was forced to challenge the same by filing
W.P.(C) No. 7708 of 2021 wherein this Court by Ext.P4 Judgment
dated 31.03.2021 directed to consider his representation.
Thereafter the respondent Management after evaluating the
circumstances assured that the posting at Edappally is a work
arrangement and the appellant is assured a posting near his
house. But again by Ext.P6 transfer order dated 08.02.2023, the
appellant was transferred from Edappally to Thiruvalla which is
also set aside by this Court as per Ext.P7 Judgment dated
27.07.2023. Thereafter disciplinary action was initiated against
the appellant without any genuine reason but to harass him for
the reason of his continuous challenge to the illegal circulars and
orders. By Ext.P15 transfer order dated 12.2023, the appellant
was transferred from Edappally shop to Nedumbassery shop. The
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:31751
appellant challenged the same by filing W.P(C) No. 372 of 2024,
for the reason that the transfer order is styled as the one in
contemplation of the disciplinary action, which the appellant
cannot morally agree. In that writ petition, Ext.P20 interim order
of stay dated 09.01.2024 was passed. However, later the writ
petition was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge as per Ext.P21
Judgment dated 06.12.2024. Against Ext.P21, the appellant
preferred a Writ Appeal as W.A. No.2113 of 2024 which was also
dismissed on the ground that the posting is found to be a near
place to his house. Finally, while dictating the Judgment by the
Division Bench, the Learned Standing Counsel informed that the
'Nedumbassery shop' stands closed and hence the appellant will
be given a suitable posting. So, upon hearing the submission, the
Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal with liberty to challenge
the fresh transfer order issued to the appellant. Now the appellant
is transferred to a place more than 30 kms away from his
residence where there is no bus route. The appellant who is an
employee bound to work for 13 hours continuously, ie, from 10.00
a.m. to 9.30. p.m will not get any bus to reach home. Hence
challenging Ext.P22 transfer order he filed the writ petition.
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:31751
3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit dated
19.12.2024, opposing the averments in the writ petition.
4. After hearing both sides and considering the materials on
record the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding
that there is no malafides in the order of transfer. However, while
dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge made it clear
that the dismissal of the writ petition will not come in the way of
the respondent, the competent authority, to consider the
appellant's representation.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the appellant was subjected to frequent transfers with a view to
harass him, since he invited the wrath of the employer by
challenging the circular enabling apportionment of liability without
conducting any enquiry. He challenged his frequent transfers
ordered by the respondents and this court interfered in the orders
of transfer. Then disciplinary proceedings are also initiated against
the appellant due to the grudge nurtured by the respondents. The
appellant is undergoing regular infertility treatment and a long
distance travel will affect his treatment. The place wherein the
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 7 2025:KER:31751
Gandhinagar shop to which the appellant is now transferred is
situated about 2 kms away from the main junction of Vallarpadam
Container Terminal Road and there is no bus service to reach that
shop. The appellant has no vehicle of his own. The present transfer
of the appellant is unwarranted and not in the interest of
administration.
7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit
that though the appellant says that he is undergoing infertility
treatment, no document has been produced by him before the
Managing Director and hence his request was not considered
favourably.
8. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the bar, especially that the
appellant claims that he is undergoing infertility treatment and he
has to travel a long distance from his house to the shop to which
he is at present transferred and no public conveyance facility is
available at the time of opening and closing of the shop, we are of
the considered opinion that if the appellant makes a
representation, supported by the medical records, the 1 st
respondent Managing Director shall consider such request and
pass appropriate orders therein.
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 8 2025:KER:31751
In the result, this writ appeal is disposed of permitting the
appellant to make a fresh representation for a convenient posting,
before the 1st respondent with all supporting documents to prove
his claim of treatment, within a period of one week from the date
of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of such a
representation, the 1st respondent shall take a decision, as
expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of ten days
from the date of receipt of the representation. It is made clear
that we have not expressed anything regarding the merits of the
legal and factual contentions raised by the parties in this writ
appeal.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
DSV/-
WA NO. 254 OF 2025 9 2025:KER:31751
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED
BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE MANAGING
DIRECTOR OF KSBC DATED 17.02.2025 ALONG
WITH ITS POSTAL RECEIPT
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R1(a) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. KSBC/5050/2024-
AE7 DATED 3-3-2025 ISSUED BY THE
CHAIRPERSON AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE
CORPORATION.
