Allowed

P.K. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Oct 2012WP(C)/5661/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition contesting a transfer from Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to Malappuram Municipality, the petitioner sought quashing of transfer orders and entitlement based on SC guidelines. Following interim relief, the petitioner confirmed compliance, prompting the court to make the interim direction absolute.

What did the court decide?

The interim order passed on 12.04.2012 directing re-posting of the petitioner to Thiruvananthapuram to the same post was made absolute. The writ petition was closed.

P.K. Sasikumar Vs State of Kerala — 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

MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2012/16TH ASWINA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 5661 of 2012 (G)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P.K.SASIKUMAR, AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUKUNJU, HEALTH SUPERVISOR, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, NEAR TTI, ORUTTUKALA, NEYYATTINKARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT-695 559.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R.MENON SMT.M.S.KIRAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF THE URBAN AFFAIRS, PUBLC OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3. CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE BUILDING, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. PIN-695 034.

¶13

4. S.BIJU, HEALTH SUPERVISOR, MALAPPURAM MUNICIPALITY, MALAPPURAM-676 505.

¶14

R3 BY ADVS. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR R4 BY ADVS. SRI.S.M.PREM SMT.K.P.SANTHI SRI.P.K.NIJOY SMT.MINU K.SANU

¶15

R1 BY ADV.SRI.T.R.RAJESH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-10-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

WP(C).No. 5661 of 2012 (G)

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3-2215/2012 DATED 17-02-2012 OF THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE SAID ORDER NO.E5-1610/11 DATED 15-12-2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.E3-2215/2012(2) DATED 27-02-2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE G.O.(MS)NO.105/2007/LSGD DATED 04-04-2007.

¶22

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.A TO JUDGE

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.

¶27

¶28

W.P.(c) No. 5661 OF 2012

¶29

¶30

Dated this the 8^th day of October, 2012

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner has approached this Court with the following

¶33

prayers :

¶34

(i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P3 and quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the extent it transfers the petitioner from the Thiruvananthapuram Corporation to the Malappuram Municipality.

¶35

(ii) declare that the petitioner being a member of scheduled caste community is entitled to continue in his home district in view of the guidelines issued by the Government in this regard .

¶36

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents 1 and 2 to allow the petitioner to continue as Health Supervisor in the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram.

And

W.P.(C)No.5661/2012

(iv) grant such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶41

When the matter came up for consideration on 12/04/2012, the following interim order came to be passed :

¶42

“ Though a number of chances have been granted to the Government Pleader as well as the other respondents to file counter affidavits, today also no counter affidavit has been filed by any one of the respondents. The counsel for the petitioner seeks the issue of an interim order. As per Ext.P1 order dated 17/02/2012, the petitioner had been transferred from Malappuram to Thiruvananthapuram and by the same order the 4^th respondent had been transferred to Malappuram. By Ext.P3 order dated 27/02/2012, Ext.P1 order has been cancelled and the petitioner has been transferred to Malappuram while the 4^th respondent has been re-posted to Thiruvananthapuram. The conduct of the respondents clearly show that they have no explanation to offer in justification of the transfer

W.P.(C)No.5661/2012

effected.

There shall, therefore, be an interim direction to the second respondent to re-post the petitioner at Thiruvananthapuram to the same post to which he had been posted as per Ext.P1.”

¶47

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to

¶48

the interim order, the petitioner had given a posting at Thiruvananthapuram and no further orders are necessary and the writ petition can be disposed of making the interim order absolute.

¶49

Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the third

¶50

respondent Corporation and so also the learned Government Pleader as well.

¶51

In the above circumstances, the interim order passed by this Court on 12/04/2012 is made absolute and the writ petition is closed accordingly.

¶52

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE

¶53

sv.

¶54

W.P.(C)No.5661/2012 4

¶55

W.P.(C)No.5661/2012 5

P.K. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K. Sasikumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Binu M.R. Vs Simi G.

N.Natarajan Vs the District Educational Officer

E.B.Byju Vs the State of Kerala

P. Narayanan Namboodiri Vs Mr. K.C.Vijayakumar

Pratheeksha Bhavan English Medium School Vs State of Kerala and 2 Others

A.M.Mohammed Jelil Vs State of Kerala