Disposed

C.K. Sajan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC1 Dec 2014WP(C)/27700/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer as mala fide. Instead of adjudicating merits, the Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's ill-health and his request for transfer to his home depot within one month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to first and second respondents to consider petitioner's case in view of ill-health and take appropriate decision on transfer request to home depot within one month.

C.K. Sajan Vs the Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

MONDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2014/10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 27700 of 2014 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.K. SAJAN, S/O.C.V. KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, WORKING AS VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY AND RESIDING AT CHENGANAMADATHIL HOUSE, KOTTAPADI.P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM-686695, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023, REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶11

2. THE MANAGER(ACCOUNTS) IN CHARGE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR(ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY-686691.

¶13

4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTTARAKKARA-691506.

¶14

BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-12-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

mbr/

¶17

WP(C).No. 27700 of 2014 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:

¶20

P1: A TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO. E1/6718/12/TSR DATED 16-11-2012 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, THRISSUR.

¶21

P2: A TRUE COPY OF MEMO E1/4118/13/TSR DATED 19-7-2013 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER KSRTC, THRISSUR.

¶22

P3: A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. E2-10/14/KNPY DATED 12-3-2014 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4: A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 15-3-2010 ISSUED BY DR. RAJESH THACHATHODIYIL, ADDITIONAL CLINICAL PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH CENTRE, COCHIN-26.

¶24

P5: A TRUE COPY OF CERTIFICATE DATED 15-11-2013 ISSUED BNY DR. RAJESH THACHATHODIYIL, ADDITIONAL CLINICAL PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF CARDIOLOGY, AMRITA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES & RESEARCH CENTRE, COCHIN-26.

¶25

P6: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 4-3-2014 (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION)

¶26

P7: A TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13-5-2014 ALONG WITH TRANSFER APPLICATION IN PROFORMA. (WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION).

¶27

P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 14-5-2014(WITH ENGOISH TRANSLATION).

¶28

P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY SCHEDULE DATED 18-10-2013 OF KOTHAMANGALAM DEPOT.

¶29

P10: A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 10-6-2014 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT(WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION).

¶30

P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO. E2/3599/14/KNPY DATED 25-9-2014.

¶31

P12: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE-V OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT 1999.

¶32

P13: A TRUE COPY OF THE CLAUSE-IX OF MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT 1987.

¶33

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: - NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

mbr/

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶38

W.P.(C)No.27700 of 2014 J

¶39

Dated this the 1^st day of December, 2014

¶40

JUDGMENT

¶41

The petitioner assails Exhibit P11 transfer order as

¶42

being mala fide and without any public interest or administrative exigency.

¶43

The facts in brief are that, the petitioner, who joined the service of the respondent Corporation as Conductor in 2000, has been subjected to frequent transfers and most of the time, he is said to have worked outside his home station. Eventually in 2012, he was promoted as Vehicle Supervisor and posted in Thrissur Depot. Later, in 2013, the petitioner was transferred to Angamaly, where he reported for duty on 19.07.2013. Five months later, he was transferred through Exhibit P3 to Karunagappally. Having absented himself from 09.03.2014 to 09.07.2014, owing to

¶44

WPC 27700/14 2

¶45

his ill-health, the petitioner reported back to duty, having in his support Exhibits P4 and P5 medical certificates showing that he had suffered coronary heart disease and that he took medical treatment as an inpatient. To get re-admitted to duty, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibits P6 and P8 representations. Eventually the petitioner, through Exhibit P3, was admitted to duty at Karunagappally and later, through Exhibit P11 transferred to Kottarakkara.

¶46

Laying serious challenge against Exhibit P11 transfer order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted extensive arguments against what is said to be illegal and unjustifiable transfer, especially as a mode of punishment, notwithstanding his precarious health condition. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has made valiant efforts to repel the contentions.

¶47

Eventually when this Court decided to adjudicate

¶48

the issue on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner

¶49

WPC 27700/14

¶50

¶51

has submitted that instead of deciding the issue on merits, this Court may direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case sympathetically, given his health condition, which has amply been established through numerous medical certificates produced by the petitioner, apart from his representations, which have already been referred to above.

¶52

In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first and second respondents to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view his ill-health and take appropriate decision concerning his request to be transferred to Kothamangalm, his home depot. If needed, the petitioner may submit a comprehensive representation

¶53

WPC 27700/14 4

¶54

to the respondent authorities placing the facts and circumstances under which he seeks transfer. The consideration of the representation shall be within one month from the date of receipt of such representation. No order as to costs.

¶55

Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge

¶56

tkv

C.K. Sajan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.K. Sajan v. the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.a.D.Antony Vs the Comptroller

Vannatham Veettil Hareef Vs State of Kerala

Asha Devi Vs the Cochin Devaswom Board

The Manager, Kambil Mopila Higher Secondary School Vs State of Kerala

Nikhil Pratheek P.J. Vs Union of India

K.C.Lenin Vs the Chairman & Managing Director, Ksrtc