Disposed

V.Venugopalan v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jan 2008WP(C)/2194/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the enforcement of government order shifting posts for two government employees following a mutual transfer. The court directed the Director of Printing to consider the petitioners' desire to continue in their current stations before shifting the posts.

What did the court decide?

Directing the second respondent to consider the petitioners' request to retain posts and take a decision before shifting the posts.

V.Venugopalan Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2008 / 28TH POUSHA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 2194 of 2008(J)

PETITIONER:

V.VENUGOPALAN ,COMPUTER GRADE-1 GOVERNMENT PRESS,SHORANUR.

¶10

C.K.PREMSANKAR,

¶11

SENIOR GRADE COMPUTER GOVERNMENT PRESS,ERNAKULAM.

¶12

BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

¶15

THE STATE OF KERALA ,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶16

THE DIRECTOR OF PRINTING GOVERNMENT CENTRAL PRESS,

¶17

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶18

P.JAYAKRISHNAN SENIOR GRADE COMPUTER

¶19

GOVERNMENT PRESS, SHORANUR.

¶20

BY GOVT.PLEADER SHRI BEJOY CHANDRAN FOR R1 AND R2

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

V.GIRI,J.

¶23

W.P.(C)No.2194 OF 2008

¶24

DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2008

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The first petitioner is working as a Computer Gr.I in

¶27

the Government Press, Shoranur and the second petitioner is working as a Senior Grade Computer in the Government Press at Ernakulam. The post of Computer Gr.I at Shoranur, was originally shifted from Ernakulam to Shoranur and similarly the post of Senior Grade Computer at Ernakulam was originally shifted from Shoranur to Ernakulam on a plea of mutual transfer made by the then incumbents, in terms of Clause XII(a) of Exhibit P1 Government Order which provides for revised guidelines on the transfer and posting of technical staff in the Printing Department. The same reads as follows:

¶28

“ Mutual transfer of Grade I and Senior Grade persons from one press to another will be allowed on promotion after mutually shifting the Grade I and Senior Grade posts subject to the general principles of transfer and that Senior Grade posts will be shifted back to the respective presses as and when the persons thus transferred retire from service or get promoted or transferred.”

¶29

W.P.(C)No.2194/08

¶30

¶31

The plea for mutual transfer and shifting of the post contemporaneously made by the then incumbents was accepted under Exhibit P2 order. By Exhibit P2, one C.R.Prajitha who was working as a Computer Gr.I in the Government Press, Ernakulam was posted and transferred to the Government Press, Shoranur on shifting of the posts. One Shri Sulaiman who was working as a Senior Grade Computer in the Government Press, Trivandrum was apparently posted to the Government Press, Ernakulam, consequent upon the shifting which was effected on a plea of mutual transfer alleged to have been made by Shri Sulaiman and Smt.C.R.Prajitha. It so happened that Shri Sulaiman and Smt.Prajitha are not now working either in Shoranur or Ernakulam since both of them are now posted at Trivandrum. The petitioners are, as stated above, working at Shoranur and Ernakulam respectively.

¶32

The 3^rd respondent is also a Senior Grade Computer at Shoranur and apparently he had raised a grievance in relation to Exhibit P2 in so far as the mutual transfer of Shri Sulaiman and Smt.Prajitha are concerned. Petitioners contend that the grievance, if any, raised by the petitioners at that point of time in

¶33

W.P.(C)No.2194/08

¶34

¶35

relation to Exhibit P2 is no longer alive or relevant at this stage in as much as the petitioners who are occupying the post of Computer Gr.I at Shoranur and Senior Grade Computer at Ernakulam are desirous of continuing in the same post in the same stations. The 3^rd respondent himself wanted posting at Shoranur earlier and it may not be necessary to consider the request made by him as it has already been satisfied. But they apprehend that there could be an inter se transfer of the petitioners apparently in the course of implementation of Exhibit PXII(a) in Exhibit P1. They have already approached the second respondent by filing Exhibits P3 and P4 pointing out that both of them would like to continue in their respective stations and therefore a shifting of the posts back to Ernakulam and Shoranur respectively would ultimately turn out to be a futile exercise, because the petitioners could still proceed with the request for a mutual transfer in terms of Clause XII(a).

¶36

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Elvin Peter and the learned Government Pleader Shri Bejoy Chandran. I have perused Exhibits P3 and P4 also. In my view though implementation of Clause XII(a) of Exhibit P1 completely

¶37

W.P.(C)No.2194/08

¶38

¶39

would contemplate shifting back the posts to their respective stations, in circumstances where the petitioners who are occupying the post of Computer Gr.I in Shoranur and Senior Grade Computer in Ernakulam respectively are desirous of continuing in the respective stations, it may not be necessary to undertake such an exercise. This is an aspect which merits consideration by the second respondent. I refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the contentions.

¶40

In the result writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider Exhibits P3 and P4 and take a decision thereon at the earliest, at any rate, before any proposal to shift one post of Computer Gr.I, Ernakulam and Senior Grade Computer, Shoranur is given effect to.

¶41

V.GIRI, JUDGE.

¶42

dsn

V.Venugopalan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Venugopalan v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.v.M.Margret and Another Vs K.K.Sasidharan

Dr.Rajeswari Gopalakrishnan Vs State of Kerala

B.Rajeev Vs State of Kerala

Savithri.E.v. Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Joshua Vs the Travancore Sugars & Chemicals Ltd.

B.Padmajan & Others Vs State of Kerala & Another