Disposed

R. Aji v. Kerala Statre Road Transport Corporation

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016WP(C)/15994/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of the writ petition challenging a transfer order. It affirmed earlier interim orders permitting the petitioner to work and left open the liberty to apply for service regularization within a stipulated time.

What did the court decide?

Directing the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for regularization of service if filed within two weeks of the judgment.

R. Aji Vs Kerala Statre Road Transport Corporation — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 15994 of 2013 (Y)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

R. AJI, TICKET AND CASH SUPERINTENDENT, KSRTC, KOLLAM DEPOT, KOLLAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.JOHNSON GOMEZ, SRI.S.BIJU (KIZHAKKANELA).

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

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

¶11

2. THE PERSONAL OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

3. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC DEPOT, KOLLAM.

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SC.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

rs.

¶16

WP(C).No. 15994 of 2013 (Y)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶19

EXHIBIT P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL1/003910/13 DATED 21-06-2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 13-06-2013 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 25-05-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE DATED 06-06-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 15-06-2013 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶24

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:-

¶25

EXT.R1A COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT INCLUDING THE STATEMENT RECEIVED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶26

EXT.R1B COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.EA3-3012/13/KOLLAM DATED 22/06/2013 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

rs.

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C)No. 15994 of 2013

¶32

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

¶33

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2016

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging Ext.P1 transfer order allegedly issued as a punishment by the second respondent and for other consequential reliefs.

¶36

This Court has passed an interim order dated 25.6.2013 staying implementation of Ext.P1, if the petitioner has not been relieved already from the unit office of Kollam, and, yet another interim order was passed on 24.7.2013 directing that, the petitioner shall be admitted to duty at the Kollam unit and shall be permitted to continue therein, in view of the interim order dated 25.6.2013, forthwith.

¶37

According to learned counsel for the petitioner,

¶38

pursuant to the said order petitioner was admitted to duty and he is continuing there. Now three years have

¶39

W.P.(C)No. 15994 of 2013 2

¶40

elapsed after the filing the writ petition and therefore due to the changed circumstances I do not think that any further orders are required in this writ petition.

¶41

However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the interim passed by this Court 25.6.2013 petitioner was not admitted to duty and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get regularisation of the service from the said date. The same is the subject matter to be considered by the first respondent, if the petitioner makes an application to that effect.

¶42

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation, I dispose of this writ petition affirming the interim order granted by this Court. However, leaving open the liberty of the petitioner to submit a proper application seeking regularisation of the service as claimed by the petitioner in view of the interim order dated 25.6.2013.

¶43

If such an application is filed by the petitioner

¶44

W.P.(C)No. 15994 of 2013

¶45

¶46

within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, same shall be considered by the second respondent within six weeks thereafter.

¶47

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

SHAJI P. CHALY, JUDGE

¶50

dlk/3/8/

R. Aji v. Kerala Statre Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Aji v. Kerala Statre Road Transport Corporation

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

Jomy Devassy Vs Sadique Ali

C.Jayakrishnan Vs Palakkad District Co-Op.Bank

National Co-Operative Consumers Federat Vs State of Kerala

Karim Khan a. Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

Jaffer.P.Aboobacker Vs Vishnu P

K. Sethumadavan Vs the Joint Registrar (General) of Co-Oeprative Societies