Petitioner challenged transfer to last choice option alleging disregard for seniority and circular clauses. Court directed internal appeal consideration and salary payment arrangements before disposal.
Petitioner directed to consider internal appeal within one month; salary to be paid at Kasargod until relief; transfer petition disposed of.
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 K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/28TH POUSHA, 1937
WP(C).No. 970 of 2016 (U)
PETITIONER:
SAJU S. AGED 38 YEARS ASSISTANT MANAGER, KSFE, BALAL VELLARIKUNDU-430, KASARAGOD-671533.
BY ADVS.SRI.J.OM PRAKASH
SMT.NISHA BOSE
RESPONDENTS:
THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED CORPORATE OFFICE, THRISSUR-680020.
ASSISTANT MANAGER, KSFE, THALAYOLAPARAMBU KANNUR 670141.
R1-2 BY SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18-01-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C).No. 970 of 2016 (U)
APPENDIX
PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------
EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY CIRCULAR NO.14/2012(P&HR) DATED 29.03.2012.
EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF TRANSFER REQUEST OF PETITIONER DATED 19.2.15.
EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF TRANSFER ORDER DATED 30.11.2015.
EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF OBJECTION SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 01.12.2015.
EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.4307 DATED 22.11.2012.
RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS: NIL
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2016
The petitioner assails Ext.P3 transfer on the ground
that he has been accommodated in the last choice, given in his application, while juniors have been placed in the higher options. The petitioner contends that he was transferred in the year 2011 to Kasargod and while working there, on 20.01.2014, he was promoted as an Assistant Manager and was posted at Vellarikundu, Kasargod, a remote place. The petitioner contends that going by the circular regulating transfers, issued by the respondent, produced at Ext.P1, the petitioner has to be given a preference. It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been relieved on the said date since no substitute has joined at Vellarikundu and the petitioner is further aggrieved by the fact that he is unable to draw the salary since already his name is recorded at Kottayam, the salary would be
WPC.970/2016
: 2 :
disbursed only from Kottayam.
Clause 8. Clause 4(a) mandates that the Managers and Assistant Managers are transferable anywhere in the State, wherein they should continue for a minimum period of one year. This does not indicate a maximum period and does not confer any right on the petitioner to seek a transfer after one year in the place to which he
was promoted and transferred as an Assistant Manager.
places out of the District and the petitioner's contention is that he
has been in Kasargod from the year 2011. The said contention cannot be countenanced, since even according to the petitioner, in 2011 the petitioner requested for a transfer to Kasargod since the
petitioner's wife had been transferred to Kasargod. In any event the said contention need not be considered since the petitioner has
now been transferred to Kottayam.
WPC.970/2016
: 3 :
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that
the delay occurred only since the persons who were promoted as
Assistant Managers had to be deployed in the various positions in
the State from which transfers have been made. It is stated that the list has been published as on today and the deployment would
be made at any rate, within a period of one month. It is also undertaken by the respondent through the learned Standing Counsel that the arrangements would be made to pay the salary of the petitioner at Kasargod itself till he is relieved.
redressed except for the grievance that the petitioner's juniors were considered to other places, while he was posted to Kottayam, his last option. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P5, an appeal before the appropriate authority, the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent
shall consider the same and also hear the affected parties if any
WPC.970/2016
: 4 :
adjustment in transfer is made. Only in that circumstance, despite
the notice having not been served on the 3rd respondent, the writ petition itself would be disposed of since if the 3rd respondent is disturbed he would have to be heard by the 2nd respondent. The undertaking made by the respondent through the learned Standing Counsel as stated above is recorded and it is directed that
Ext.P4 would be considered within a period of one month from today.
Writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma
//true copy//
P.A to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was denied preference in a transfer despite circular clauses regarding difficult places.
Whether the grievance of posting to a junior's preference is redressable through internal appeal under the circular.
SAJU S.
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
THE DIRECTOR THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED
GEETHA MG
K. VINOD CHANDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
