Disposed

Seena K v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC14 Nov 2012WP(C)/24837/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging a transfer order displacing the petitioner and retaining a third respondent with higher seniority. The court directed the board to reconsider the rival claims within specified timelines, vacated the interim status quo order to facilitate the second respondent's duties, and made the pending transfer subject to the board's final decision.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file detailed representation before the Board within two weeks to reconsider posting claims; interim status quo order of second respondent vacated.

Seena K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/23RD KARTHIKA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 24837 of 2012 (D)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

SEENA K, AGED 52 YEARS, W/O.SURESH BABU.N., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, ERNAKULAM (RESIDING AT STHUTHI, ELAVANKA LINE, AKG ROAD, EDAPALLY TOLL, KOCHI-24)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.S.KANNAN

¶9

SMT.K.S.SANGEETHA SMT.S.SIMY SRI.R.ROHITH

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004.

¶12

2. PUSHPA.T., EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE, MALAPPURAM-673 001.

¶13

3. SREEKUMAR, EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THRIPUNITHARA-682 301

¶14

R1 BY ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C)NO.24837/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1 COPY OF THE BO.NO.3077/96/(HRD.86/9697), DATED 23/12/1996 PRESCRIBING GUIDELINES/NORMS FOR TRANSFERS AND POSTINGS OF OFFICER OF BOARD

¶21

P2 COPY OF THE BOARD ORDER (FM)NO.1918/2012 DATED 17/10/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

P3 COPY OF THE REQUEST SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL DATED 11/11/2010 ALONG WITH THE FORWARDING LETTER ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, TRANSMISSION CIRCLE KANNUR.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS & ANNEXURES:

¶24

ANNEX R1(A) COPY OF THE INCUMBENCY DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER AND THE 2ND AND 3RD RESPONDENTS.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO.JUDGE

sts

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶29

W.P.(C). No. 24837 of 2012

¶30

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The challenge in this writ petition is with regard to Ext.P2 transfer order, whereby the petitioner has been displaced from Ernakulam to Kozhikode, while the 3^rd respondent who is stated as having longer station seniority has been retained and hence under challenge.

¶33

The case of the petitioner is that, she is working as an Executive Engineer and was permitted to join duty at Ernakulam nearly one year and ten months back; prior to which she was working at Kannur. It is stated that her husband is working at Nadapuram and there is nobody to look after affairs in the family. Considering the request made by the petitioner, she was given a

¶34

transfer and posting from Kannur to Ernakulam and it was accordingly that she joined the station earlier. Shortly afterwards, she stands transferred as per Ext.P2 order, to a far off place at Kozhikode, contrary to the relevant norms issued by the Board itself as borne by Ext.P1, without enabling the

¶35

W.P.C. No. 24837 of 2012

¶36

-2-

¶37

petitioner to complete the minimum tenure of three years at Ernakulam.

¶38

It is the specific case of the petitioner that, undue favours are being extended to persons having longer station seniority like the 3^rd respondent, who is continuing at Ernakulam for more than 'five' years, which is not liable to be entertained in view of the clear stipulation under Ext.P1. The 1^st respondent

¶39

Board has filed a statement seeking to sustain Ext.P2. In paragraph '3' it has been stated that, but for a short spell of nearly 5 months and 22 days in Kannur, the petitioner has been working in different offices in Ernakulam District itself for nearly 18 years 7 months and 4 days. Particulars of service of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 have been produced in the form of a table vide Annexue R1(a). With regard to the contention of the petitioner as to the retention of persons having longer station seniority, it is pointed out in paragraph '7' that, one such officer stands protected from transfer, being a physically challenged person; another one being a widow and yet another one being a protected member of an organization of the

¶40

W.P.C. No. 24837 of 2012 -3-

¶41

employees, thus necessitating the transfer of the petitioner to accommodate the 2^nd respondent, who is having a better claim.

¶42

With regard to the retention of the 3^rd respondent, it is stated in paragraph '9' that the 3^rd respondent is an experienced hand in the 'distribution side' and hence retained at Ernakulam, though he is a native of Alappuzha. Reliance is also sought to be placed on Clause '8' of Ext.P1 guidelines which stipulates that, notwithstanding any thing mentioned above, the Board reserves the right to transfer or retain any officer in any place in the interest of career planning, or considering the exceptional skill, qualification in a specialised area of an officer or in exigencies of service of public interest. Referring to the credentials, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner also does have sufficient experience in the 'distribution side' and that, Annexure R1(a) reveals that the 3^rd respondent has been retained in Ernakulam for more than 19 years, but for two short spells of few months elsewhere.

¶43

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, there is no dispute with regard to the rights and liberties of the

¶44

W.P.C. No. 24837 of 2012 -4-

¶45

2^nd respondent who has been ordered to be placed at Ernakulam against the post which was earlier occupied by the petitioner and that the dispute is more with regard to the posting/retention given to the 3^rd respondent. The learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent submits that, pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the 2^nd respondent had already been relieved from Malappuram and by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court, she is not in a position to join duty at Ernakulam and is put to much loss and hardship.

¶46

After hearing, this Court finds that the matter requires to be reconsidered by the Board; especially with regard to the claim for a posting/retention at Ernakulam, in so far as it relates to the petitioner and the 3^rd respondent. In the said circumstance, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a detailed representation before the 1^st respondent Board within 'two weeks' form the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, on which event, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed by the Board after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also to the 3^rd respondent to substantiate the

¶47

W.P.C. No. 24837 of 2012 -5-

¶48

rival claims. This shall be done at the earliest, at any rate, within 'six weeks' thereafter.

¶49

The interim order of 'status quo' passed by this Court on 30.10.2012 and extended thereafter from time to time stands vacated, so as to enable the 2^nd respondent to join duty at Ernakulam. Continuance of 3^rd respondent at Ernakulam and the transfer of the petitioner to Kozhikode vide Ext.P2 shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the 1^st respondent as aforesaid.

¶50

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶51

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.

¶52

Kp/-

Seena K v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Seena K v. Kerala State Electricity Board

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

Habna Jose Vs the Director of Public Instruction

E.Geethakumari Vs State of Kerala

P.Manoharan Vs the State of Kerala

T.P.Abdul Hakkim and Others Vs State of Kerala and Others

M. Noorjahan Vs Municipal Secretary

C.Kalavathy Vs State of Kerala