Disposed

P.N.Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC27 May 2016WA/993/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ appeal challenged a lower court judgment transferring an employee. The High Court held that the transfer order violated a prior direction requiring notice. However, accepting the current physical placement, the Court disposed of the appeal by directing the Board to re-consider the transfer claim after hearing both parties.

What did the court decide?

Directing the first respondent to re-consider the 5th respondent's claim for transfer with notice to the appellant and pass fresh orders.

P.N.Sreekumar Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2016/6TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶5

WA.No. 993 of 2016 () IN WP(C).10842/2016

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 10842/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 29.03.2016

¶7

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶8

P.N.SREEKUMAR, S/O NARAYANAN EMBRA, PUTHEN MADATHIL HOSUE, CHERIYA PALLATHURUTHU, NEAR SNDP NORTH PARAVOOR 683 513, NOW WORKING AS SANTHI, MARKANDESARAM DEVASWOM, MANNAM P.O, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) SRI.SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶11

THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANNATHAPURAM 695 O01

¶12

THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PARAVOOR GROUP, PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 683 513

¶14

THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, DEVASWOM OFFICE, MANNAM THIRUVALLOOR, ALUVA 683 511

¶15

THRIVIKRAMAN MAMBOODIRI, S/O NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, MOOTHEDATH MANA, THIRUVALLOOR, ALANCADU P.O, ALUVA 683 511

¶16

R BY SRI.S.SUBHASH CHAND

¶17

R BY SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU, SC, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶20

¶21

W.A. No. 993 of 2016

¶22

-----------------------------------------Dated this the 27^th day of May, 2016.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Antony Dominic,J.

¶25

Heard the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent.

¶26

In this appeal filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 10842

¶27

of 2016, he is impugning the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered on 29.03.2016. Recording the fact that the fifth respondent has taken over as Santhi in Markandeshwaram Devaswom under Mannam sub group and that the appellant has been accommodated at Naranam Devaswom at Eloor, the learned single Judge closed the writ petition.

¶28

The main complaint of the learned senior Counsel for the appellant was that in ordering transfer as per Ext.P2, Ext.P1 judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6088 of 2016 was not complied with. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 4 explained the compelling circumstances which forced them to issue Ext.P2 order. Further, according to the learned counsel appearing for the 5^th respondent, he was senior and eligible to be transferred to Markandeshwaram Devaswom and it was in recognition of that

¶29

W.A. No. 993/2016

¶30

-2-

¶31

entitlement, he was transferred.

¶32

Having considered the rival submissions made, what we find is that irrespective of the controversy that is raised by the parties, in Ext.P1 judgment rendered in W.P.(C) No. 6088 of 2016 which was filed by the appellant, this Court had inter alia ordered that if another person is sought to be accommodated at Markandeshwaram Devaswom where the appellant was working, before such orders are passed, the appellant shall be heard.

¶33

It is an admitted fact that before Ext.P2 order was passed, no notice, whatsoever, has been issued to the appellant. This, therefore, means that in transferring the appellant from Markandeshwaram Devaswom, the directions in Ext.P1 judgment were violated by the official respondents. For that reason, Ext.P2 order is vitiated.

¶34

Be that as it may, factually as on today, the position is that the appellant is working at Naranam Devaswom and the 5^th respondent is working at Markandeshwaram Devaswom. Taking note of this factual position, though in our view the proceedings which led to Ext.P2 are required to be re-considered by the first respondent Devaswom Board with notice to the appellant, we do not want to upset that status quo.

¶35

In such circumstances, this writ appeal is disposed of directing that the first respondent shall re-consider the claim of the 5^th respondent for transfer with notice to the appellant and pass fresh orders

¶36

W.A. No. 993/2016

¶37

-3-

¶38

in the matter. In order to expedite the proceedings and as agreed by the parties, we direct that the appellant and the 5^th respondent shall appear before the first respondent for a personal hearing on 04.06.2015 at 11 a.m. On such appearance, the parties shall be heard and fresh orders shall be passed within one week thereafter.

¶39

It is made clear that the parties will thereafter be governed by the orders to be passed on such hearing.

¶40

It is further made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties.

¶41

ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.

¶42

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.

¶43

¶44

W.A. No. 993/2016 -4-

P.N.Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.N.Sreekumar v. Travancore Devaswom 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

A.M.Abubacker Vs Muhamma Masjidathul Muhammadiya Sangam

Smt. Neeta Anto Vs the Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Tds)

Arya Devi Vs the State of Kerala

Union of India Vs K.Parasurama Iyer

R. Sivadasan Nair Vs the Tiruvananthapuram Regional Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd.

Hotel Surya Vs the State of Kerala