Disposed

M.Sreelatha Amma v. State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC2 Jul 2010WP(C)/16853/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding transfer postings. The Court observed that related appeals were pending before the 1st respondent and remitted the matter to that authority for consideration and expeditious redress.

What did the court decide?

The 1st respondent is directed to consider the pending appeals and the petitioner's grievance with notice to parties within eight weeks.

M.Sreelatha Amma Vs State of Kerala and Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 16853 of 2010(F) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

¶8

M.SREELATHA AMMA,W/O.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI, AGED 54 YEARS, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, PANDALAM, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT SOURABHYA, ADITYA NAGAR 159, VADAKEVILA P.O., KOLLAM-10. BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN SMT.ANSU COTTAGIRI VARGHESE SMT.VINITHA.B

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANATHAPURAM.

¶12

THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

SMT.S.SHOBANAKUMARI, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, ANCHALUMOODU, KOLLAM.

¶14

SMT.J.SARALA, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, ICDS, PUNALUR, KOLLAM.

¶15

SMT.N.P.VIJAYALAKSHMI, CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, MUKHATHALA, KOLLAM.

¶16

GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKATH

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

WP(C).No. 16853 of 2010

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

EXHIBITS

¶21

EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7.1.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶22

EXT.P2TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(P).12/04/P&ARD DATED 10.9.04 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS

¶23

EXT.P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E1/56814/09 DATED 19.5.10 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶24

EXT.P4TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 24.5.10 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT

(TRUE COPY)

P.A TO JUDGE

ANTONY DOMINIC, J

W.P.(C).16853/2010

Dated this the 2^nd day of July, 2010

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

Petitioner is a Child Development Project Officer presently

¶32

working at Pandalam. She is attaining the age of superannuation on 30.11.2010. Claiming the benefit of Clause 13 of Ext.P2 providing that employees who have less than two years to retire will be posted at stations of their choice, she made Ext.P1 application dated 7.1.2010. In this application, which was submitted before the General Transfer, 2010, petitioner requested for a posting at Anchalumoor, Kollam, Punalur or at Mukhathala.

¶33

However Ext.P3 General Transfer order was issued retaining the petitioner at Pandalam and posting respondents 3 to 5 in the stations opted by the petitioner in Ext.P1 application. It is stated that the 5^th respondent who is posted at Kukhathala, is also attaining the age of superannuation in February, 2011 and she had opted for a posting at Thiruvananthapuram. Aggrieved

¶34

W.P.(C).16853/10

¶35

¶36

by Ext.P3, posting the 5^th respondent at Mukhathala, she has filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent and that the appeal is pending.

¶37

In the meanwhile, aggrieved by Ext.P2, insofar as the choice indicated by the petitioner in Ext.P1 were overlooked, petitioner has also filed Ext.P4 appeal before the 1^st respondent and that also is pending. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has come up for hearing.

¶38

Presently petitioner seeks only a posting at Mukhathala where the 5^th respondent is now posted. In view of the pendency of the appeal filed by the 5^th respondent seeking a transfer to Thiruvananthapuram, petitioner submits that if the 5^th respondent does not want a posting at Mukhathala, her claim is liable to be considered.

¶39

Having regard to the fact that Ext.P4 appeal filed by the petitioner and also the appeal filed by the 5^th respondent are

¶40

W.P.(C).16853/10

¶41

¶42

pending before the 1^st respondent, I feel that this is a matter for the 1^st respondent to consider and if possible redress the grievance of the parties to the extent possible. Therefore I direct the 1^st respondent to consider Ext.P4 and also the appeal stated to have been filed by the 5^th respondent. This shall be done with notice to the parties and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶43

6. Petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment along with

¶44

the copy of this writ petition before the 1^st respondent for compliance.

¶45

Writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶46

ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge

¶47

mrcs

M.Sreelatha Amma v. State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Sreelatha Amma v. State of Kerala and Others

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

Indian National Anganwadi Employees Fed Vs Usha Titus

M.Radha Vs the State of Kerala

K.v.Balakrishnan & Others Vs State of Kerala

R.Minimol Vs State of Kerala & Others

M.B.Vinod Kumar Vs Shri Patil Ajit Bhawatrao

Thankabai Vs State of Kerala and Others