Partly allowed

Linimol K.K v. Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC9 Sept 2016WP(C)/30326/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a transfer order violating service guidelines due to incomplete tenure and family constraints. Court dismissed quashing, directing petitioner to file a representation before the 3rd respondent seeking revision within one week, considering her family circumstances and available local vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to submit representation to 3rd respondent within one week to seek revision of transfer order; petition disposed of.

Linimol K.K Vs Kerala Water Authority — 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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016/18TH BHADRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 30326 of 2016 (M)

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

LINIMOL K.K OVERSEER GRADE III, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H CIRCLE,KOZHIKODE.

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.K.R.GANESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, P.H CIRCLE, KOZHIKODE, PIN 673 001.

¶14

WP(C).No. 30326 of 2016 (M)

¶15

6. JITHESH M, OVERSEER GRADE-III, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, WATER SUPPLY SECTION NO. II, KANNUR PIN 670 001.

¶16

BY SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

¶17

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

¶18

DSV/22/9/16

¶19

WP(C).No. 30326 of 2016 (M)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER’S EXHIBITS : -----------------------

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 COPY OF THE TRANSFER NORMS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31-08-2016 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS : ----------------------NIL // True Copy // P.A. To Judge DSV/22/9/16

¶24

ALEXANDER THOMAS, J.

¶25

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

¶26

W.P.(C).No. 30326 of 2016

¶27

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

¶28

Dated this the 9^th day of September, 2016

¶29

J U D G M E N T

¶30

The aforecaptioned Writ Petition has been filed seeking to

¶31

quash the impugned Ext.P-2 transfer order dated 31.8.2016, whereby the petitioner, who is working as Overseer Grade III in the Public Health (PH) Circle, Kozhikode of the Kerala Water Authority, has been transferred as per serial No.11 thereof from the Public Health (PH) Circle, Kozhikode to PH Section, Perambra. Contesting respondent No.6 has been posted in the place of the petitioner as per serial No.12 of Ext.P-2. The grievance of the petitioner is that she had not completed 3 years of service in that station and therefore the present transfer is against the transfer guidelines in the respondent Kerala Water Authority. The prayers raised in this

¶32

Writ Petition as as follows:

¶33

“i) issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records leading to Ext.P-2 and quash the same to the extent it transfers the petitioner from P.H.Circle Office, Kozhikode to P.H.Section, Perambra and posting of 6^th respondent to P.H. Circle, Kozhikode.

¶34

ii) issue a writ of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 1 to 5 to allow the petitioner to continue in her present station namely, P.H. Circle, Kozhikode.

¶35

W.P.(C).30326/16 - : 2 :-

¶36

iii) declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in her present office namely P.H.Circle, Kozhikode.”

¶37

Heard Sri.P.J.Elvin Peter, learned counsel appearing for

¶38

the petitioner and Sri.George Mathew, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Kerala Water Authority appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶39

Sri.George Mathew, learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority would submit on the basis of the instructions that respondent No.6 has already joined the post held by the petitioner and that the petitioner has already been relieved in implementation of the impugned transfer order. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submits that there are 9 vacancies in and around Kozhikode in the post of Overseer Grade III to which the petitioner could be conveniently accommodated, the details of which are averred in para 5 of the Writ Petition.

¶40

After considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the view that it is for the petitioner to ventilate her grievances before the 3^rd Chief Engineer so as to seek revision of the impugned transfer order. In this view of the matter, it is ordered that it is for the petitioner to submit a representation to ventilate her grievances

¶41

W.P.(C).30326/16 - : 3 :-

¶42

in respect of the impugned transfer and to submit the same before the 3^rd respondent within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall also produce certified copy of this judgment along with the representation. Upon receipt of such representation, the 3^rd respondent shall take up the same for consideration without much delay and render a considered a decision thereon after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, either in person or through authorised representative, if any, within a period of one week from the date of hearing in the matter is conducted. The petitioner's specific plea that she can be conveniently accommodated in the various existing vacancies in Kozhikode should be considered, keeping in view that the fact that the petitioner is a lady having 2 children aged 8 and 6, who are now prosecuting their studies in the schools nearby her residence.

¶43

With these observations and directions, the Writ Petition (Civil) stands finally disposed of.

¶44

Sd/sdk+ ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE ///True Copy///

¶45

P.S. to Judge

¶46

W.P.(C).30326/16 - : 4 :-

Linimol K.K v. Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Linimol K.K 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

Satheesh R Vs Kerala Water Authority

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

Dr. v.Wilsanand Vs the Corporate Manager

K.Santhoshkumar Vs Kerala Stae Financial Enterprises Ltd.

Vivekandan Vs Kerala Co-Operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

Suraj Jose Vs the State of Kerala