Disposed

R.Mohan Kumar v. Kerala State Handicrafts Apex Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.H-231

Kerala HC23 Aug 2016WP(C)/19384/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Ernakulam heard a writ petition challenging a transfer order of a sales assistant with 26 years of service who suffered a health injury. The bench held that no malafides were established and directed the petitioner to file a representation with the society while retaining his current post pending consideration.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to file representation with the 1st respondent; petitioner retained at Thiruvananthapuram Depot pending consideration.

R.Mohan Kumar Vs Kerala State Handicrafts Apex… — 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

TUESDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/1ST BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 19384 of 2016 (W)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

R.MOHAN KUMAR, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER), SALES ASSISTANT GRADE II, "SURABHI", KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM, SAPHALYAM SHOPPING COMPLEX, TRIDA, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 034.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.HOOD SMT.M.ISHA SRI.AMAL KASHA

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS APEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO.H-231, REPRESENTED BY IT SECRETARY, KANNANTHODATH LANE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM- 682 016.

¶11

2. SECRETARY, KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS APEX CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. H-231, KANNANTHODATH LANE, VALANJAMBALAM, ERNAKULAM- 682 016.

¶12

3. S.P. SANTHOSE KUMAR, EMPORIUM ASSISTANT, "SURABHI", KERALA STATE HANDICRAFTS EMPORIUM, YMCA BUILDING, CHINNAKADA, KOLLAM- 691 001.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.N.MATHEW

¶14

SMT.LATHA ANAND R3 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SMT.M.BINDUDAS

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

WP(C).No. 19384 of 2016 (W)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶20

P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE CARD ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶21

P2 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER AND POSTING ORDER DATED 19.04.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER AND POSTING ORDER DATED 01.06.2016. ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4 TRUE COPY OF THE OUTPATIENT RECORD ISSUED FROM THE MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶24

P5 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 11/06/2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS

¶26

R1(1) TRUE COPY OF THE JOINT RESOLUTIONS AND DECISIONS TAKEN DURING THE DISCUSSIONS THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY HAD WITH THE EMPORIUM MANAGERS AND OFFICERS IN CHARGE, ON 20/08/2015, 22/08/2015 AND 24/08/2015.

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

SHAJI P. CHALY, J.

¶31

W.P.(C) No.19384 of 2016

¶32

----------------------------------------------Dated this the 23^rd day of August, 2016

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

Petitioner is a Sales Assistant in the 1^st respondent Society. Petitioner has 26 years of service with the 1^st respondent. According to the petitioner, from 1990 to 1994 he worked at Calcutta, Vijayawada and Vishakapattanam branches of the 1^st respondent. Thereafter from 1994 to 2007, he was posted at various branches in Kerala. During a short duration in 2007-2008, petitioner was posted at Thiruvananthapuram, which is his native place. In 2008 he was transferred to Palakkad and again transferred to Madurai in 2009. In December, 2012 petitioner suffered an accident and he was admitted in the Medical College, Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, due to the nature of injury suffered, there was an Inter Locking Nail implanted in the body of the petitioner to enable him to pursue his ordinary and normal life and the said attachment continues even now. Due to health reasons petitioner was transferred from Madurai and posted at Thiruvananthapuram as per Ext.P2

¶35

W.P.(C) No.19384 of 2016 2

¶36

order dated 19.04.2013. By the very same order, 3^rd respondent was transferred and posted at Kollam. By Ext.P3 order dated 01.06.2016, petitioner is again transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Bangalore and the 3^rd respondent is transferred from Kollam and posted at Thiruvananthapuram. It is in this backdrop, challenging Ext.P3, petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate reliefs.

¶37

The 1^st and 2^nd respondents have filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegations and claims and demands raised by the petitioner. According to the said respondents, petitioner is an efficient person and therefore taking into account the said circumstances only Ext.P3 order is passed, transferring the petitioner to Bangalore to man the office there. According to the 1^st respondent, the said aspect is recited in Ext.P3. Therefore, according to respondents 1 and 2, there are no enabling circumstances to the petitioner to approach this Court seeking remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner has filed a reply affidavit reiterating the stand adopted in the writ petition.

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for

¶39

¶40

W.P.(C) No.19384 of 2016

¶41

the 3^rd respondent, and perused the pleadings and documents on record.

¶42

Along with the reply affidavit filed, an order dated 11.06.2016 passed by the 1^st respondent wherein the 3^rd respondent is transferred and posted at Thiruvananthapuram, also taking note of the interim order passed by this Court in this writ petition is produced. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, since an order of status quo was passed by this Court, the 1^st respondent has violated the interim order passed by this Court by issuing Ext.P5 order. However, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the depot at Kollam was closed down, and therefore the 3^rd respondent had to be accommodated and it is with that intention in view, Ext.P5 order is passed, accommodating the 3^rd respondent at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent, even though Ext.P5 order dated 11.06.2016 is passed, the 1^st and 2^nd respondents have not posted him in accordance with the said order. At present, 3^rd respondent is working at Ernakulam in terms of working arrangement. However, petitioner could not establish any malafides in the matter of transfer, which is a sine-qua-non for attacking a

¶43

¶44

W.P.(C) No.19384 of 2016

¶45

transfer order.

¶46

But taking into account the respective submissions made across the Bar and on perusal of the documents, and bearing in mind the settled position in law with respect to the transfer of employees to various destinations, I am of the considered opinion that the grievance voiced by the petitioner in this writ petition can be directed to be considered by the 1^st respondent Society.

¶47

In that view of the matter, I direct the petitioner to submit a representation to the 1^st respondent within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, putting forth his grievances and the said representation shall be considered by the 1^st respondent within one month from the date of receipt of the said representation. Till such time, the petitioner shall be retained in the Thiruvananthapuram Depot. I also make it clear, since Ext.P5 order is passed by the 1^st respondent transferring the 3^rd respondent to

¶48

Thiruvananthapuram Depot, the same can also be implemented by the 1^st respondent.

¶49

W.P.(C) No.19384 of 2016

¶50

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶52

Sd/- SHAJI P. CHALY JUDGE

¶53

//true copy//

¶54

P.S. to Judge

¶55

St/23.08.2016

R.Mohan Kumar v. Kerala State Handicrafts Apex Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.H-231

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Mohan Kumar v. Kerala State Handicrafts Apex Co-Operative Society Ltd. NO.H-231

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

K.P. Hamsa Vs M. Ravindran

C. Sudhakaran Vs Sri Antony Chacko

Jobin Joy Vs Abdul Razak

Savithri.N.P Vs K.C.Mohanan Nambiar

Fawas Shameem Vs Sathyavathy

Soman Pillai Vs Registrar of Co-Op. Societies