Disposed

Satheesh R v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC7 Sept 2016WP(C)/29459/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a physically disabled draftsman, challenged his transfer ordered to be replaced by Respondent 6. Court directed petitioner to seek representation before the authority for reconsideration and reserved the matter for future vacancy consideration.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioner to file representation for reconsideration; directed authority to consider petitioner for future vacancy arising on 31.5.2017.

Satheesh R Vs Kerala Water Authority — 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 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/16TH BHADRA, 1938

¶5

WP(C).No. 29459 of 2016 (F)

¶6

PETITIONER :

¶7

SATHEESH.R., DRAFTSMAN GRADE I, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶8

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

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD & HL), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶13

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (GL.), KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶14

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.DIVISION, KALMANDAPAM, PALAKKAD-678 001.

¶15

6. M.RADHAKRISHNAN, DRAFTSMAN GRADE I, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H.SUB DIVISION, OTTAPPALAM, PALAKKAD-679 101.

¶16

R1 TO R6 BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-09-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

sts

¶19

WP(C).No. 29459 of 2016 (F)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF THE DISTRICT HOSPITAL, PALAKKAD TO THE PETITIONER.

¶23

EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/JB/B4/755/96/VOL.II DATED 6.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT P3 COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/WSP/PKD/E1-25/2009 DATED 7.1.2012 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶25

EXHIBIT P4 COPY OF ORDER NO.KWA/JB/E4(B)/7777/09 VOL.II DATED 31.8.2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 COPY OF CIRCULAR NO.130558/SDI/82/GAD DATED 10.3.1983 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶26

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 29459 of 2016

¶34

==================

¶35

Dated this the 7^th day of September, 2016 J U D G M E N T

¶36

The grievance in this Writ Petition is directed against the impugned Ext.P-4 transfer order dated 31.8.2016 issued by the 4^th respondent Deputy Chief Engineer (GL), Kerala Water Authority, whereby the petitioner has been ordered to be transferred from the Public Health (PH) division, Palakkad to the P.H.Sub Division, Ottapalam and consequentially, R-6 has been ordered to be transferred in the place of the petitioner. It is averred that the petitioner has been working as Draftsman Grade I in PH Division, Palakkad of the Kerala Water Authority and that he is a physically handicapped person having 40% permanent disability as evidenced by Ext.P-1 medical certificate issued by the Government Medical Board. That he is residing at Puthupariyaram, which is about 9 kilometers away from the present station at Palakkad and that he has to take care of his aged and bedridden mother and his children are studying in 11^th and 6^th Standards respectively. That the office

¶37

W.P.(C).29459/16 - : 2 :-

¶38

at Ottapalam, to which the petitioner has now been ordered to be transferred as per Ext.P-4 is 40 kilometers away and further that the petitioner, in order to reach the said office at P.H. Sub Division, Ottapalam, has to travel in two buses and thereafter will have to walk nearly 2 kilometers after getting down from the bus, etc. That in view of the physical infirmity, it is quite difficult for the petitioner to walk at a stretch of 2 kilometers to the office after travelling 40 kilometers, etc.. That R-6 has been ordered to be transferred to the petitioner's place, who was promoted as Draftsman Grade I only in May, 2016 and was posted at PH Sub Division, Ottapalam and that he has served hardly less than four months in that station and it is only to accommodate his request, that the petitioner, who is physically handicapped, has been disturbed. It in the light of these facts and circumstances that the petitioner has preferred the instant

¶39

Writ Petition (Civil) with the following prayers:

¶40

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P-4 and quash the same to the extent it transfers the petitioner from P.H.Division, Palakkad to P.H.Sub Division, Ottappalam and transfers the 6^th respondent to the place of the petitioner;

¶41

ii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue at P.H.Division, Palakkad.

¶42

iii) issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue at P.H.Division, Palakkad.”

¶43

W.P.(C).29459/16 - : 3 :-

¶44

Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the petitioner will submit a representation before the 3^rd respondent for reconsidering the matter and that in case the 3^rd respondent is not amenable to cancel the present transfer order, then this Court may direct the 3^rd respondent to consider posting the petitioner in the retirement vacancy in the post of Draftsman Grade I, that is to arise in the Water Supply Project Division, Kalpamdapam, Palakkad, on 31.5.2017, keeping in view that the petitioner is a physically disabled person.

¶45

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri.George Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority appearing for respondents 1 to 5. In the nature of the relief that is proposed to be granted in these writ proceedings, notice to R-6 stands dispensed with.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to ventilate his grievances before the 3^rd respondent and seek to revise the impugned transfer order. In that view of the matter, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to file appropriate representation ventilating his grievances before the 3^rd respondent within a period of one week

¶47

W.P.(C).29459/16 - : 4 :-

¶48

from the date of receipt of a certified copy of his judgment along with a certified copy of this judgment. Upon receipt of such representation as directed above, the 3^rd respondent shall take up the same for consideration without any further delay and shall render a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and R-6, either in person or through their authorised representatives, if any, and will render a considered decision thereon, within a period of two weeks from the date of hearing of the parties as directed above. It is further ordered that the 3^rd respondent shall consider the submissions and contentions of the petitioner & the 6^th respondent and deal with the same while disposing of the representation. It is further ordered in the interest of justice that in case the 3^rd respondent is not amenable to cancel the transfer order, which has been issued against the petitioner as of now, then it should be ensured that in case the retirement vacancy arises at Water Supply Project Division, Kalpamdapam, Palakkad, on 31.5.2017, then the 3^rd respondent shall favourably consider the petitioner for being transferred and posted to that vacancy in June, 2017. This direction is issued taking into account the fact that the petitioner is a physically disabled person suffering

¶49

W.P.(C).29459/16 - : 5 :-

¶50

from 40% disability as per Ext.P-1 medical certificate and in the light of the averment that the petitioner has now been disturbed to accommodate the requirements of the 6^th respondent.

¶51

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil)

¶52

stands finally disposed of.

¶53

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE

¶54

///True Copy///

¶55

P.S. to Judge

Satheesh R v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh R v. Kerala Water Authority

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

Dr. v.Wilsanand Vs the Corporate Manager

Siji Paily Vs K.T. Balabhaskaran

Neethu A.T. Vs University of Calicut

Sathish Babu P.T. Vs the Kerala State Financial Enterpirses Ltd.

Linimol K.K Vs Kerala Water Authority

K.Santhoshkumar Vs Kerala Stae Financial Enterprises Ltd.