In this writ petition challenging a transfer order against a Senior Superintendent of KSEB, the impugned order was set aside not on merits but to direct the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent Board authority for a reconsideration under transfer norms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST 2016/12TH SRAVANA, 1938
WP(C).No. 25365 of 2016 (U)
PETITIONER(S):
1. UMESH K, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN 682 005.
BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.
SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH
RESPONDENT(S):
1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004.
4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICITY CIRCLE OFFICE, ERNAKULAM 682 018.
R BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03-082016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 25365 of 2016 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS
----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09-07-2015 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF BOARD ORDER DATED 24-04-2013
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27-07-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
avk
ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.
W.P.(C).No.25365 of 2016
Dated this the 3rd day of August, 2016
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is presently working as Senior
Superintendent under the services of the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board at its Electrical Section, Mattancherry, Ernakulam District. The primary grievance of the petitioner is in regard to the impugned Ext.P-3 order issued by the 3rd respondent whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transfered from his present station at Electrical Division, Mattancherry, Ernakulam District to the Electrical Division, Brahmapuram Diesel Power Project, Tripunithura, Ernakulam District. It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned transfer order is in blatant violation of Ext.P-2 norms, issued by the Kerala State Electricity Board which regulates the matters in relation to transfer of employees of the Board. It is averred by the petitioner that he had joined the present station at Electrical Division, Mattancherry only on 13.7.2015 and as per Clause 3 of Ext.P-2 norms, an incumbent like the petitioner is entitled to remain in that station at least for a period of 3 years viz., 13.7.2018, as per the earlier
transfer order dated 9.7.2015. It is also urged that the petitioner's father is now aged 80 years who is suffering from
W.P.(C).No.25365 of 2016 2
various illness associated with oldage and the petitioner's two brothers are working at Bangalore, Karnataka State and Pattambi, Palakkad District. It is the responsibility of the petitioner to look after his aged father. Moreover, it is also stated that the petitioner's younger son is studying at Class X and that the present transfer of the petitioner would cause serious inconveniences and hardships. It is also averred that there are two other incumbents who are senior to the petitioner who are working in the Electrical Division, Mattancherry, viz., one Smt. Anita and Sri.K.S.Manoj who have completed more than 4 years in that station and who are not yet subjected to any such transfer. Accordingly, it is urged by Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the writ petitioner that the impugned Ext.P-3 is vitiated by arbitrariness, discrimination,etc. Sri.K.S.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board submits on the basis of instructions, that pursuant to the impugned Ext.P-3 transfer order, the petitioner has already been relieved from the station at Mattancherry and a substitute (viz.,one Smt.K.Usha Kumari) has already joined in the said post held by the petitioner. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances
W.P.(C).No.25365 of 2016
3
that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition (civil) with the
following prayers:-
petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB appearing for the respondents.
W.P.(C).No.25365 of 2016 4
is impugned in this writ petition is a transfer order and therefore this Court feels that these are matters which are to be primarily addressed before the competent Appellate Authority who may bestow their serious consideration on all aspects of the matter based on the transfer guidelines and such other aspects of the matter. Accordingly it is ordered, that it is for the petitioner to file an appeal before the competent authority of the respondent KSEB and upon receipt of such appeal, the competent authority of the respondent Board will take a considered decision thereon, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, etc. The petitioner will be at liberty to file the aforestated appeal as directed above, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and it is for him to produce the said Appeal Memorandum along with the certified copy of this judgment before the competent authority of the first respondent within the above said time limit. If such an appeal is so filed as directed above, the competent authority will take a considered decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the said appeal. The competent authority of the respondent Board will also duly take
W.P.(C).No.25365 of 2016
5
into consideration and advert to all the contentions urged by the petitioner, more particularly, those referred to in the earlier part of the judgment.
With these observations and directions, this writ
petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.
Sd/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE
//TRUE COPY//
PA TO JUDGE
avk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a transfer order should be challenged via writ petition or an internal appeal.
Whether the High Court should examine the arbitrary nature of a transfer order under service rules.
UMESH K
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED
ALEXANDER THOMAS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
