Kerala High Court
A.Satheesh Chandran vs Dr.K.Vasuki Ias on 14 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2025:KER:60768
1
Con.Case(C)No.2612 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 23RD SRAVANA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 2612 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 31.05.2024 IN OP(KAT) NO.221 OF
2024 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OPKAT:
A.SATHEESH CHANDRAN,AGED 48 YEARS
ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES (HIGHER GRADE),
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR OF FACTORIES, MINI
CIVIL STATION, IRINJALAKKUDA, THRISSUR. ('NANDANAM',
KOTTAPPURAM, KOLLODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 571).,
PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.RAGHUNATHAN
SRI.M.SALIM
SHRI.R.SRINATH
SRI.K.JALADHARAN
SRI.V.M.JACOB
DR.STANLY CHAZHOOR
RESPONDENTS/1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS IN OPKAT:
1 DR.K.VASUKI IAS, AGED 42 YEARS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LABOUR AND SKILLS
DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695001
2 P.PRAMOD,AGED 53 YEARS
DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND BOILERS, DIRECTORATE OF
FACTORIES AND BOILERS, SURAKSHA BHAVAN, KUMARAPURAM
2025:KER:60768
2
Con.Case(C)No.2612 of 2024
KANNAMMOOLA ROAD, KUMARAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.,
PIN - 695011
BY ADV.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL, SR.G.P
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) WAS FINALLY HEARD ON
01.08.2025, THE COURT ON 14.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:60768
3
Con.Case(C)No.2612 of 2024
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
This Contempt Case (Civil) is filed under Section 12 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, by the petitioner in OP(KAT)
No.221 of 2024, alleging non-compliance of the judgment dated
31.05.2024 passed by this Court in that original petition.
2. The petitioner filed OP(KAT) No.221 of 2024, contending
that he is entitled to be considered for general transfer, despite
the circular No.11/2024 dated 25.04.2024, wherein it is stipulated
that those who have not completed three years as on 28.02.2024
will not be considered for general transfer. In the original petition,
the petitioner contended that while he was officiating as Additional
Inspector of Factories, Neyyattinkara, he was transferred midway
to Irinjalakkuda on 21.10.2023, and hence, the general transfer
norms as per the circular No.11/2024 are not applicable to him.
This Court, by the judgment dated 31.05.2024, ordered that the
petitioner also should be considered for general transfer along with
others, and Clause No.2 in transfer norms will not operate against
the petitioner for consideration.
2025:KER:60768
3. The petitioner states that despite sending a copy of the
judgment to both the respondents by e-mail as well as by speed
post on 10.06.2024, the 2nd respondent did not carry out the
transfer and postings within the Department. Hence, the petitioner
issued Annexure A2 Lawyer notice dated 04.09.2024 to the
respondents. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent, after
the receipt of Annexure A2 Lawyer notice issued him Annexure A3
letter dated 07.09.2024, purportedly in compliance of the
directions in the judgment. In that letter, it is stated that even
on consideration of the general transfer application submitted by
the petitioner, he would not get a transfer to either of his opted
stations. The 2nd respondent did not carry out general transfer for
the year 2024 and came up with factually incorrect submissions in
gross violation and dereliction of the direction issued by this Court
in the judgment. Hence, according to the petitioner, the
respondents have committed contempt of court.
4. On 18.10.2024, when this contempt case came up for
consideration, this Court directed that the learned Government
Pleader produce a copy of the compliance order dated 09.10.2024
2025:KER:60768
along with a memo.
5. The 2nd respondent filed an affidavit dated 24.10.2024,
producing therewith Annexure R2(a) order dated 09.10.2024 of
the 2nd respondent whereby the application for general transfer
submitted by the petitioner was disallowed, holding that it was
considered along with other general transfer applications and he
is not entitled for the transfer to the stations as requested.
Paragraphs 3 to 10 of that affidavit read thus:
"3. It is respectfully submitted that the 2nd respondent
invited General Transfer Applications vide Circular No. 11/24
dated 25/04/2024. On verification of the on-line draft
General Transfer order obtained from SPARK, it is revealed
that 3 Additional Inspectors were included in it and they
were Smt. Geetha Devi, Beena. S and Santhosh. They were
presently occupying the post in Ernakulam, Perumbavoor
and Kottayam respectively. They sought transfer to
Kottayam, Ernakulam and Perumbavoor respectively. But
Smt Geetha who is working in Ernakulam office has not
completed 3 years of service in that office. As a result she is
not eligible to claim transfer as per Transfer norms. Hence
other transfers can only be made only if the officer working
in Ernakulam becomes eligible to be transferred from that
office. As a result the 2nd respondent decided to consider
those transfer applications in the next General Transfer as
2025:KER:60768
per the eligibility prescribed in the guidelines
G.O(P)No.03/2017/P&ARD dated of General Transfer in
25/02/2017. Accordingly General Transfer order was not
issued, and therefore, the draft of the General Transfer was
also not published.
4. It is submitted that the judgement in OP (KAT) 221 of
2024 dated 31/05/2024 was received only on 18/06/2024.
Immediately on receiving the same, respondent took action
on it. The 2nd respondent informed the Petitioner to submit
General Transfer application vide Letter No.
DEB/2916/2023-E1 dated 26/07/2024. Accordingly General
Transfer Application was received from the Petitioner vide
Letter No. JDEKM/AIF/IJKD343/2024-A dated 27/07/2024.
As per the judgement of the Court, the 2nd respondent again
verified the application of the petitioner along with other
General Transfer Applications. On verification of the
application of the Petitioner, it is seen that the Petitioner has
requested transfer to the following offices of the Additional
Inspector.
1. Additional Inspector of Factories, Kollam
2. Additional Inspector of Factories, Kottayam
3.Additional Inspector of Factories, Thiruvananthapuram.
5. It is submitted that Office of Additional Inspector of
Factories, Kollam which is the 1st choice of the Petitioner
where Smt. Babitha G.Menon is working and she has taken
over charge of that office only on 26/10/23. She got transfer
to her home station after serving 4 years in Kottayam
(South) office. Since she has not completed 3 years of
2025:KER:60768
service in Kollam office, she cannot be transferred from that
office which is against the norms prescribed in the
Government Order.
6. It is submitted that the Petitioner's 2nd option is Office of
the Additional Inspector of Factories, Kottayam which has
two divisions North and South. In Kottayam (South) office,
Sri. Vipin Murali is working and he has taken over charges of
that office only on 25/10/2023 and hence he cannot be
transferred from that office as he has not completed 3 years
of service in that office. In Kottayam (North) office Sri.
Santhoskumar. S is working for more than 4 years. He has
requested transfer to the Office of the Additional Inspector
of Factories, Chengannur and Office of the Additional
Inspector of Factories, Alappuzha. But the officers working
in the Office of the Additional Inspector of Factories,
Chengannur and Alappuzha were not completed 3 years of
service. Hence the 2nd respondent decided to retain Sri.
Santhosh Kumar. S in Kottayam (N) office since it is not fair
to transfer him to another office which is not in his option.
7. It is submitted that the 3rd option of the Petitioner is
Office of the Additional Inspector of Factories,
Thiruvananthapuram, where Smt. Shama. S is working.
Smt. Shama S has taken over charges of that office only on
27/10/23 and hence she has not completed 3 years of
service and retiring only on superannuation on 31/05/26.
8. It is submitted that the Petitioner cannot be transferred
to any of his opted offices, the matter was informed to the
2025:KER:60768
petitioner vide Letter No.DFB/2916/2023-El dated
07/09/2024 (Annexure A3). The 2nd respondent has
complied with the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of
Kerala in the judgment No. OP(KAT) 221 of 2024 dated
31.05.2024 and issued order on 09.10.2024. True copy of
the order No. DFB/2581/2024-EI dated 09.10.2024 is
produced herewith and marked as Annexure R2(a).
9. It is submitted that while issuing the General Transfer
Order, the 2nd respondent has to consider the service
details/circumstances of the officers currently working in
their stations/offices. Transferring the officers as per the
options of the Petitioner i.e, officers in Kollam, Kottayam and
Thiruvananthapuram offices is seem to be against the
guidelines of general transfer GO(P)No: 03/17/PRARD dated
25/02/17. The 2nd respondent complied with the direction of
the Hon'ble High Court.
10. It is submitted that Sri. Shyju. K, was promoted as
Additional Inspector of Factories and posted at Additional
Inspector office Thrissur (S) as per Order
No:DFB/2829(1)/2023-El dated. 18/09/2024(Annexure A4).
Consequently Sri. Unnikrishnan.K, Additional Inspector of
Factories, Thrissur (S) was transferred to the open vacancy
in the office of the Additional Inspector of Factories,
Kozhikode (South) due to retirement. This transfer is purely
on the basis of administrative convenience of the
department and has no connections with the General
Transfer of the Additional Inspector of Factories for 2024.
Moreover the Petitioner has not opted for Thrissur (S) and
2025:KER:60768
Kozhikode (S) Offices in his application for General Transfer.
Hence it is submitted that there is no deliberate attempt for
Contempt of Court from the part of the 2nd Respondent".
6. To that affidavit, the petitioner filed a reply affidavit dated
11.11.2024. It is contended by the petitioner in that affidavit that
the chronology of events, when taken together, would clearly
depict the deliberate unwillingness of the 2nd respondent to comply
with the judgment of this Court.
7. Along with I.A.No.1 of 2025, the petitioner has produced
Annexures A5 and A6 documents.
8. On 28.11.2024, when this contempt case came up for
consideration, this Court directed the learned Government Pleader
to go through the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner and find out
whether the transfers have been effected or not.
9. On 02.12.2024, this Court directed the learned
Government Pleader to get instructions whether the department
is proposing to effect general transfer next year.
10. On 23.01.2025, this Court directed the learned
Government Pleader to get instructions whether the general
transfer is due.
2025:KER:60768
11. On 28.03.2025, when this matter came up for
consideration, this Court directed to post the case on 25.05.2025
and in the meanwhile, the respondents were directed to consider
the petitioner for transfer, either in 2024 or 2025.
12. Along with I.A.No.3 of 2025, the petitioner has produced
Annexure A10 order dated 26.07.2025 of the 2nd respondent,
contending that after Annexure R2(a) order dated 28.05.2025, the
2nd respondent posted another person to the post wherein the
petitioner opted in the general transfer.
13. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Government Pleader.
14. The grievance of the petitioner is that his request for
transfer was not considered properly by the 2nd respondent during
the general transfer as ordered by this Court in Annexure A1
judgment dated 31.05.2024 in OP(KAT)No.221 of 2024. According
to him, the 2nd respondent did not consider his request in the
letter and spirit of Annexure A1 judgment, and the entire
proceedings of the 2nd respondent are nothing but an outcome of
mala fide exercise of power. The learned Government Pleader
2025:KER:60768
took a stand that in the year 2024, no general transfer was
effected. However, in view of Annexure A1 judgment, the request
of the petitioner was considered along with the other general
transfer applications, and he was informed about his
disentitlement by Annexure A3 letter. Similarly, Annexure R2(a)
order dated 28.05.2025 was also passed by the 2nd respondent
after the direction of this Court in this contempt case on
28.03.2025. In that order also the petitioner was found ineligible
for transfer, as requested by him.
15. From the submissions made at the Bar, we notice that
no general transfer was effected in the establishment of the
petitioner during 2024. Even then, in compliance with the
directions in Annexure A1 judgment, the request of the petitioner
was considered by the 2nd respondent, and he was intimated by
Annexure A3 letter regarding his disentitlement to get the transfer
to the opted stations. Annexure R2(a) order dated 09.10.2024 was
also issued by the 2nd respondent stating the reasons for not
granting transfer to the petitioner.
16. After the order dated 28.03.2025 in this contempt case
2025:KER:60768
the request of the petitioner was once again considered by the 2nd
respondent and rejected the same by the 2nd Annexure R2(a)
order dated 28.05.2025. It is true that in Annexure A1 judgment,
it was directed that the application for general transfer made by
the petitioner shall be considered without applying Clause No.2 of
the general transfer norms. Even then, there is sufficient
reasoning given in Annexure R2(a) orders by the 2nd respondent,
for not granting transfer to the petitioner as requested by him.
The subsequent posting of another person in the post opted by
the petitioner, after the second Annexure R2(a) order dated
28.05.2025, is not a ground to say that there is malafides in the
order of rejection of the request of the petitioner, when valid
reasons are stated in that order. Apart from that, it is pertinent to
note that even if this Court directed the respondents to consider
the request of the petitioner for general transfer, in effect, the
direction is to consider that request, if the petitioner is otherwise
entitled.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record
and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to hold
2025:KER:60768
that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case of civil
contempt by the respondents.
In the result, this Contempt Case (Civil)No.2612 of 2024
stands closed.
SD/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
SD/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
2025:KER:60768
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2612/2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 31.5.2024
IN OP(KAT)NO.221 OF 2024 OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT.
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SENT BY THE LAWYER
OF THE PETITIONER TO RESPONDENTS DATED
4.9.2024.
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.DFB/2916/2023-E1 DATED
7.9.2024 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DFB/2829(1)/2023-E1
DATED 18.9.2024 OF 2ND RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) True copy of the order No.DFB/2581/2024-E1
dated 09-10-2024
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.08/2025
(NO.DFB/264/2025-E1) DATED 18.3.2025 ISSUED
BY 2ND RESPONDENT.
Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR GENERAL
TRANSFER, 2025 SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER DATED
24.3.2025.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R2(a) TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.DFB/2581/2024-E1 DATED
28.05.2025 OF DIRECTOR OF FACTORIES AND
BOILERS.
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A7 True copy of Circular No.09/2025
(No.DFB/264/2025-E1) dated 22.4.2025 of 2nd
respondent (relevant portion).
Annexure A9 True copy of Order No.DFB/2829(1)/2023-E1
dated 18.9.2024 of 2nd respondent.
Annexure A8 True copy of Order No.DFB/264/2025-E1 dated
30.5.2025 of 2nd respondent.
