Disposed

Simi Rahim P.A. v. Kerala State Electiricty Board

Kerala HC3 Aug 2016WP(C)/25627/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court did not decide the transfer petition. Instead, it directed the service authority to reconsider the transfer based on the petitioner's family circumstances and night-duty concerns, allowed her to remain at the current station pending a decision, and granted liberty to file a revision petition.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to file a representation for revision of the transfer order on personal grounds and family responsibilities; continuation at the current station pending the authority's decision.

Simi Rahim P.A. Vs Kerala State Electiricty Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

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

¶5

WP(C).No. 25627 of 2016 (C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SIMI RAHIM P.A. EMPLOYEE CODE NO.1048236, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY, COCHIN- 682 002

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.T.G.SUNIL (PRANAVAM) SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTIRICTY BOARD LTD REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004

¶11

2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004

¶12

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004

¶13

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. ELECTRICAL DIVISION, MATTANCHERRY, COHCIN- 682 002

¶14

R BY SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶15

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

¶16

WP(C).No. 25627 of 2016 (C)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶20

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 2-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, IRINJALAKUDA, TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶21

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-12-2015 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KSE BOARD, TRIVANDRUM

¶22

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 15-01-2016 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, ERNAKULAM

¶23

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER LIST PREPARED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶24

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 30-07-2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶25

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30-05-2013 ISSUED BY THE BOARD RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL ---------------------------------------

// True Copy //

P.A. To Judge

rmm

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C) No.25627 of 2016

¶31

Dated this the 3^rd day of August, 2016

¶32

J U D G M E N T --------------

¶33

Petitioner is presently working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) under the service of the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, Electrical Division, Mattancherry, Ernakulam District. Petitioner challenges the impugned action of the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer in ordering to transfer her from Electrical Section Mattancherry to Transmission Circle, Kalamassery as per the impugned Ext.P-6 transfer order dated 30.07.2016. It is pointed out that the petitioner had joined the present station at Mattancherry only on 15.01.2016 and going by Clause 3 of Ext.P-7 transfer norms the petitioner is entitled to continue such station for a minimum period of three years, that is up to 15.01.2019. It is also pointed out that the duties of Assistant Engineer at the Transmission Circle like Kalamassery, involves night duty as well which is quite hardous and unsafe for a lady like the petitioner. Moreover, It is also pointed out that the

¶34

petitioner's husband is now working abroad and she has two minor daughters studying in standard 12^th and 6^th and there is

¶35

W.P.(C) No.25627 of 2016 2

¶36

none to take care of them at home, when the petitioner has to

¶37

undergo night duty and this causes not only hardships but also many other serious problems regarding the safety and well being of her daughters during night time.

¶38

It is also pointed out by the petitioner that many other incumbents who were liable to be transferred as per Ext.P-7 norms, have not been transferred from such impugned order, the details of which have been urged in ground D of the writ petition. In the light of this aspect, it is urged by the petitioner's counsel that the impugned transfer order is vitiated by arbitrariness,

¶39

discrimination etc. In the light of the facts and circumstances the

¶40

petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers.

¶41

“(i) To issue a writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P-6 and set aside the same to the extent it transfers the petitioner from Electrical Division, Mattancherry to Transmission Circle, Kalamassery;

¶42

(ii) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate wit, order or direction, directing the 3^rd respondent to allow the petitioner to continue at Electrical Division, Mattancherry;

¶43

(iii) To declare that the transfer of the petitioner from Electrical Division, Mattancherry to Transmission Circle, Kalamassery is absolutely illegal; And

¶44

(iv) To grant such other and further reliefs as are just, proper and necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case”

¶45

Heard Sri.P.J. Elvin Peter learned counsel for the

¶46

petitioner and Sri.K.S.Anil, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB

¶47

appearing the respondents.

¶48

W.P.(C) No.25627 of 2016 3

¶49

In the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into

¶50

account the aspects about the impugned transfer order, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is for the petitioner to ventilate her grievances before the 3^rd respondent, for revising the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, the petitioner is given liberty to file a suitable representation before the 3^rd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Judgment and this, the petitioner will do so, while submitting such representation within the above said time limit along with a certified copy of this judgment. On receipt of such representation, the 3^rd respondent shall take into consideration such representation without much delay and will render a considered decision thereon after granting a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and any other affected party, like serial No.72 of Ext.P-6 transfer proceedings. The specific contention of the petitioner that it is not proper for the authorities to subject the petitioner, who is a lady, to night duty at Transmission Circle and the aspects regarding her daughters, etc. should be seriously considered and it may be ascertained whether any male officer could be posted at the Transmission Circle, Kalamassery, etc. Further aspects pointed

¶51

W.P.(C) No.25627 of 2016 4

¶52

out by the petitioner that her husband is working at abroad and her other related family responsibilities etc. should also be seriously considered by the 3^rd respondent. A decision in this regard shall be rendered by the 3^rd respondent on the above said representation within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of judgment. Until a decision taken on the said representation, the petitioner will be allowed to continue at the present station at Mattancherry. It is made clear that in case the petitioner does not file the above said representation within the above said time limit, then the benefit of the said direction to allow the petitioner to continue at Mattancherry, will stand automatically vacated without any further orders from this Court .

¶53

With the above observations and directions this Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE.

¶56

rmm

¶57

// True Copy //

¶58

P.A. to Judge

Simi Rahim P.A. v. Kerala State Electiricty Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Simi Rahim P.A. v. Kerala State Electiricty 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

Preejith M.P. Vs the Corporate Manager

G.Mohandas Vs Kerala State Warehousing Corporation

C.K.Purushothaman Vs State of Kerala

Bindu S.K Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Prapanchan .K.R Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Umesh K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board