Allowed

G.Murukadas v. Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited

Kerala HC19 Feb 2015WP(C)/10893/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the petitioner's transfer from Palakkad to Ernakulam. The Court quashed the transfer order, directing the respondent corporation to retain the petitioner at his original station based on transfer guidelines favoring employees posting in their home districts. This decision makes the case in service transfers and SC/ST preferences.

What did the court decide?

Impugned transfer order quashed; first respondent directed to retain petitioner at Palakkad.

G.Murukadas Vs Kerala State Backward Classes… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2015/30TH MAGHA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 10893 of 2013 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

--------------

¶8

G.MURUKADAS, S/O.LATE K.GOPALAN, AGED 39 YEARS, WORKING AS WATCHMAN, KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING, METTUPALAYAM, PALAKKAD-678 001 AND RESIDING AT 26/502, ERUMAKKARA STREET, CITY P.O., PALAKKAD-14.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN.

¶10

RESPONDENT(S):

¶11

--------------

¶12

1. KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,(A GOVERNMENT OF KERALA UNDERTAKING), REGISTERED OFFICE, T.C. 27/588 (7) (8), 'SENTINEL", SECOND FLOOR, PATTOOR, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶13

2. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, KERALA STATE BACKWARD CLASSES CORPORATION LIMITED,

¶14

METTUPALAYAM STREET, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶15

3. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, SC/ST DEVELOPMENT (F)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶16

R1,R2 BY SRI.JAYAPRADEEP V, SC, KSBCDC & BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19-02-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

rvs.

¶19

WP(C).No. 10893 of 2013 (J)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶22

------------------------

¶23

EXHIBIT	P1- A TRUE DATED BY THE	COPY 14-03- FIRST	OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(RT) 125/2001 SCSTDD 2001 ALONG WITH ANNEXURE-1 THERIEN ISSUED RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT	P2- A TRUE CERTIFI	COPY CATE	OF PAGE NO. 3 OF SECONDARY SCHOOL LEAVING OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT	P3- A TRUE DATED 2	COPY 1-02-	OF THE LETTER NO. 2462/E1-2009/KSBCDC 2013.
EXHIBIT	P4- A TRUE 01-04-2	COPY 013.	OF THE ORDER NO. 998/E1 2013/KSBCDC DATED
EXHIBIT	P5- A TRUE	COPY	OF TRANSFER GUIDELINES.
EXHIBIT	P6- A TRUE TO MOTH	COPY ER OF	OF PRESCRIPTION DATED 08-04-2013 ISSUED THE PETITIONER BY DR. N.M.ARUN.

¶24

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS :

¶25

------------------------

NIL.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

RVS.

A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J

¶31

WPC No.10893 of 2013

¶32

Dated this the 19^th day of February, 2015

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Ext.P4 transfer order, by which the petitioner was transferred from the present station is under challenge in this writ petition.

¶35

The petitioner is a regular watchman working under the first respondent from 1997 and he was regularised in 2001 as evidenced in Ext.P1. As evidenced in Ext.P2, he is a member of the Scheduled Caste Community. As per clause - 10 of Ext.P5 transfer guidelines, public transfer is not applicable to last grade servants and so far as possible they should be posted at their Home District/opted District. Clause 17 herein provides that members of scheduled castes/scheduled tribes and other categories provided therein should be given special preference in their transfer. Though wage revision was issued as back as 2009, it is not so far implemented. The petitioner is getting pre-revised pay. He is the only earning member of his family consisting of

¶36

WPC No.10893/2013 2

¶37

his mother suffering from chronic diabetics for the last 16 years, unemployed wife and a child. The first respondent is not providing any residential accommodation at Ernakulam; it is submitted. It is, therefore, not at all possible for the petitioner to have two establishments at time, especially, because of the fact that the cost of living at Ernakulam is on a higher side. The vacancy at Ernakulam was existing from 2012. It is understood that one Sini, now working at Palakkad who was transferred from Ernakulam has already applied for re-transfer to Ernakulam in the General Transfer being effected in May, 2013. It is with this background, the petitioner has come up before this Court.

¶38

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit contending that the petitioner was transferred to District Office, Ernakulam on administrative exigencies. According to them, there are two Watchmen working in the District Office, Palakkad whereas in the District Office Ernakulam, there is only one post of Watchman is lying vacant. The respondent Corporation also justified the

¶39

WPC No.10893/2013 3

¶40

transfer of the petitioner for the sake of administrative convenience.

¶41

Arguments have been heard.

¶42

The only reason stated for transfer of the petitioner from Palakkad to Ernakulam is administrative exigencies. The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the factual contentions taken by the petitioner are not denied by the respondents and there is nothing to show any administrative exigencies in Ext.P5 impugned order. It was pointed out that the other watchman was transferred from Ernakulam to Palakkad in 2012 and the said vacancy was existing for the last one year. The learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that the petitioner being an SC candidate and being a class IV employee, he may be exempted from transfer as per Ext.P5 transfer norms. I see valid force in the said submission. Ext.P5 is passed on the basis of the policy decision of the Government. The petitioner is entitled to exemption from transfer as per Ext.P5. It is crucial to note that the person who was transferred from Ernakulam to

¶43

WPC No.10893/2013 4

¶44

Palakkad in the last year has already applied for retransfer and waiting for orders. The said employee belongs to Ernakulam District. If at all there is an administrative exigency, the other employees could have been granted a posting at Ernakulam.

¶45

On a consideration of the entire materials now placed on record, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to succeed.

¶46

In the result, this writ petition is allowed. Ext.P4 is

¶47

quashed. The first respondent is directed to retain the petitioner at Palakkad.

¶48

Sd/- A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE

¶49

css/ true copy

¶50

P.S.TO JUDGE

G.Murukadas v. Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G.Murukadas v. Kerala State Backward Classes Development Corporation Limited

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

Saraswathy Amma Vs Tahsildar

Aji Vs the State of Kerala

Krishnan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sakeer Vs the District Collctor

Jayaprakash Vs State of Kerala

Sreekanth Vs the Village Officer