Remanded

Paul P.R. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Kerala HC5 Aug 2016WP(C)/25647/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Kerala held that the Chief Engineer should re-consider the petitioner's transfer to Malappuram District, as he is in the midst of a part-time LLB course. The transfer proceedings were set aside and remitted for fresh consideration regarding constraints imposed by the study agreement.

What did the court decide?

Transfer proceedings set aside and remitted to the Chief Engineer for fresh consideration after hearing the petitioner.

Paul P.R. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/14TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 25647 of 2016 (E)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

1. PAUL P.R. EMPLOYEE CODE NO.1066572, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD,. ELECTRICAL SECTION, UDIYANKULANGARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT 695122

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP. BY ITS CHGAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶11

2. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHIO BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶12

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM,PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. TRIVANDRUM RURAL ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, KATTAKKADA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM=695572

¶14

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

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

WP(C).No. 25647 of 2016 (E)

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

----------------------EXHIBIT P1; TRUE COPY OF THE PROSPECTUS FOR THE YEAR 2016 FOR 3 YEARS PART TIME LLB COURSE CONDUCTED BY THE GOVERNMENT LAW COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM`

¶20

EXHIBIT P2; TRUE COPYOF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 26.5.2015 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER

¶21

EXHIBIT P3: TRUE COPYOF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 21.7.2016

¶22

EXHIBIT P4: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 14.3.2016 ISSUE DTO THE PETITIONER BY THE PRINCIPAL, GOVT. LAW COLLEGE, TRIVANDURM`

¶23

EXHIBIT P5; TRUE COP OF THE BOARD ORDER DATED 30.5.2013

¶24

EXHIBIT P6: TRUE COP OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION FROM GENERAL TRANSFER 2016 DOWNLOADED BY THE PETITIONER FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE BOARD

¶25

EXHIBIT P7: TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR PROTECTION FROM GENERAL TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DOWN LOADED FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE BOARD

¶26

EXHIBIT P8: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY S.P.MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITALA, PARASSALA.

¶27

EXHIBIT P9: TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 16.3.2016 ISSUE DBY THE VILALGE OFFICER PARASUVAKKAL

¶28

EXHIBIT P10: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER DATED 30.7.2016 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT``

¶29

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS NIL

//TRUE COPY//

PA TO JUDGE

avk

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016

¶35

Dated this the 5^th day of August, 2016

¶36

JUDGMENT

¶37

The petitioner who is presently working as Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the service of 1^st respondent Kerala State Electricity Board, is aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-10 transfer order dated 30.7.2016 whereby, he has been ordered to be transferred from his present station at Electrical Section, Udiyankulangara, Trivandrum District to Electrical Circle, Manjeri, Malappuram District. The sheet anchor of the petitioner’s case is

¶38

that the petitioner had duly secured permission from the competent authority of the respondent Kerala State Electricity Board to join for the three year part time evening L.L.B course in

¶39

the Government College of Law (evening), Thiruvananthapuram as evident from Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 26.5.2015 issued by the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer and that pursuant to this he had joined for the first year of the LLB course in the academic year 2015-16 and his three year course will end only in the academic year 2017-18 and that the present impugned transfer as per the impugned Ext.P-10 when he is in the midst of second

¶40

year L.L.B Course, is in blatant violation of Clause 6 (ix) of Ext.P-5 transfer norms dated 30.5.2013 issued by the respondent Kerala

¶41

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016 2

¶42

State Electricity Board, etc. It is also pointed out that there is no Government Law College or Private Law College at Manjeri where he has been ordered to be transferred and it is impossible for him to continue his evening LLB course at Thiruvananthapuram and therefore the impugned transfer proposal is enforced, petitioner is bound by the agreement executed at the time of his admission, to pay a liquidated damages of Rs.25,000/- to the State Government for discontinuance of studies as evident from Ext.P-1. It is also averred that the petitioner has aged parents to look after and if the petitioner is forced to join in the new station at Manjeri, Malappuram District, then his parents who are permanently settled in Thiruvananthapuram will suffer untold hardships and difficulties as none is there to look after them. Ext.P-8 is the medical certificate issued with respect to his father’s oldage ailments and Ext.P-9 is the certificate dated 16.5.2016, issued by the Village Officer concerned, certifying that the petitioner’s father is a dependent of the petitioner. It is in the light of these facts and circumstances the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition (civil) with the following prayers:-

¶43

“i. To issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P-10 and set aside the same to the extent it transfers the petitioner from Trivandrum District to Malappuram District;

¶44

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016

¶45

¶46

ii. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue in his present station i.e, Electrical Section, Udiyankulangara, so as to enable him to complete his part time LLB evening Course.

¶47

iii. To declare Ext.P-10 order to the extent transfters the petitioner is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; And

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

It is seen from a mere perusal of Ext.P-2 proceedings dated 26.5.2015, issued by the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer (Human Resources Management) of the Board that the said competent authority of the Board had duly given permission to the petitioner to join the three year LLB evening course at Government Law College (evening) Thiruvananthapuram. However, the said permission is with the specific condition that the said prosecution of study by the petitioner “will not entail any protection for him from transfer or transfer from the present station to any other station and that the study shall not affect his normal duties or responsibilities in the Kerala State Electricity Board Limited,etc.” It is urged by Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned

¶52

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016 4

¶53

counsel for the writ petitioner that Ext.P-3 norms dated 21.7.2016 issued by the respondent Board will make it clear from a reading of Note-3 of Clause II of those norms that station means, which defines with station. Note-3 of Clause II of Ext.P-3 reads as follows:-

¶54

“Note (3): Station means, service in all offices within a radius of 40 kms from the office within which the domicile of the employee is situated and declared as the place of domicile by the employee for transfer. Total continuous service in all the offices within the station will be reckoned as the service at that station.”

¶55

Therefore, it is urged by the petitioner that the condition imposed in Ext.P-2 will only restrict the petitioner from claiming any protection from transfer from one station to another within a radius of 40 kms, etc. Therefore, the restrictive condition imposed in Ext.P-2, will not in any manner preclude the petitioner from challenging the present impugned transfer as per Ext.P-10 whereby, he has been ordered to be transferred from Thiruvananthapuram District to Manjeri, situated in Malappuram District which is 250-300 kms away. Moreover, it is also urged that Clause 6 (ix) of Ext.P-5 transfer norms dated 30.5.2013 confers protection from transfer in cases where officers who are studying for part time courses with the approval of the Board and that this protection is confined only to one part time course in the

¶56

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016 5

¶57

whole service. Accordingly it is contended that the restrictive condition in Ext.P-2 should be understood in a reasonable and harmonious manner, to fully effectuate the provisions contained in Clause 6 (ix) of Ext.P-5 transfer norms and therefore the transfer effected at a time when the petitioner is in the midst of his three year LLB course is certainly unreasonable and improper. It is pointed out that one of the conditions attached to the petitioner’s admission in the Government Law College, (evening) (Thiruvananthapuram) for prosecuting his LLB (evening course) for the academic years 2015-2018 is that the candidates who obtained such admission and discontinued their studies later, after closing of the admissions in the same year or subsequent years are liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- as liquidated damages to the State Government as evident from Ext.P-1 prospectus issued from the Government Law College, Thiruvananthapuram. It is pointed out that it is without considering these crucial aspects; the impugned transfer order has been issued. Evidently, it appears to this Court that these crucial and relevant aspects of the matter may not have been duly and fully considered by the authorities concerned, before the issuance of the impugned transfer order. Accordingly, this Court

¶58

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016 6

¶59

is of the considered opinion that the matter requires a serious relook at the hands of the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer and the matter in relation to the impugned Ext.P-10 transfer order as per Sl.No.233 to the limited extent it affects the writ petitioner herein, will stand remitted to the 3^rd respondent Chief Engineer for consideration of the matter afresh. It may be noted that the 3^rd respondent, after due application of mind, had given due permission to the petitioner to join in his three year LLB Evening Course at Thiruvananthapuram as evident from Ext.P-2 proceedings. The contention of the petitioner that he would suffer adverse consequences if he is forced to be transferred to Manjeri, requires serious and effective consideration by the 3^rd respondent. The petitioner will also be at liberty to submit any detailed representation in that regard in aid of his submissions and contentions and the petitioner may do so, by forwarding his representations and contention and this, the petitioner may do so, by forwarding his representation along with a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner will submit such representation before the 3^rd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. After receipt of such representation, the 3^rd respondent will afford a

¶60

W.P.(C).No.25647 of 2016 7

¶61

reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner either in person or through authorized representative, if any and will render a decision thereon in the matter, after consideration of all relevant aspects of the matter afresh. In order to facilitate the 3^rd respondent to effectively and properly consider the entire matter afresh consequent to the remit, it is ordered that the impugned Ext.P-10 transfer proceedings as per Sl.No.233 thereof, to the limited extent it affects the petitioner herein will stand set aside. All the submissions and contentions made by the petitioner referred to herein above, should be duly considered and adverted to by the 3^rd respondent and it is expected that the 3^rd respondent will render a just and fair decision in the matter.

¶62

With these observations and contentions, this writ petition (civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶63

Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS JUDGE

¶64

//TRUE COPY//

¶65

PA TO JUDGE

¶66

avk

Paul P.R. v. Kerala State Electricity Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Paul P.R. v. Kerala State Electricity 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

Prasanna Alias Gita Vs the State of Kerala

Jessy George Vs Co-Operative Academy of Professional Education (Cape)

Umesh K Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Jaison Peter Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

R.Shajikumar Vs State of Kerala

Vishnu v. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited