Partly allowed

Sarojini P.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC18 Jul 2017WA/1457/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the Post Master General to decide on the transfer of the appellant's husband out of the Thrissur division within two months to preserve her savings scheme agency, pending such decision, she should not face termination.

What did the court decide?

The appellant's husband shall be transferred out of the Thrissur division within two months; agency not to be disturbed during this period.

Sarojini P.G Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JULY 2017/27TH ASHADHA, 1939 WA.No. 1457 of 2017 () IN WP(C).5670/2014 ------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 5670/2014 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA, DATED 7.2.2017

¶5

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶6

SAROJINI P.G D/O.CHANDRIKA PANAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM, WADAKKANCHERY PO., THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680623

¶7

BY ADVS.SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SMT.DEEPTHI S.MENON

¶8

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶10

2. THE DIRECTOR NATIONAL SAVINGS SCHEME, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PIN-695001

¶11

3. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER WADAKKANCHERY PO., KUMARANALLOOR THRISSUR DISTRICT PIN-680590

¶12

4. HEAD POST MASTER HEAD POST OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY PIN-680582

¶13

5. POST MASTER GENERAL CENTRAL REGION, KOCHI, PIN-680020

¶14

6. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF POST AND TELEGRAPH NEW DELHI

¶15

R4-R6 BY SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL R1 TO R3 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR.V.TEKCHAND

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-072017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

VPS

¶18

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, C.J. & RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., J.

¶19

W.A. No.1457 OF 2017

¶20

--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 18^th day of July, 2017

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

Navaniti Prasad Singh, C.J.

¶23

The writ petitioner is the appellant. The writ petitioner was employed as an agent in Mahila Pradhan Kshetriya Bachat Yojna, a scheme under the Government Savings Banks Act, 1873. It appears that the Government of India earlier declared a policy that if inter alia spouse of an agent get employed in the postal department anywhere in India, the agency would have to be cancelled. Later, this was restricted to a division, in the sense that if an agent was operating in a division, inter alia his spouse being employed in the postal department in the said division, that would lead to termination of agency.

¶24

In the present case, the petitioner was an agent under the said scheme. She got married in 1994. Her husband was a extradepartmental agent, which is not equivalent to employment under

¶25

W.A. No.1457/2017 2

¶26

the postal department. In 2004, he was ultimately absorbed in the postal department. But the agency of the petitioner continued. On coming to know that the agency was sought to be terminated, the appellant/writ petitioner moved this Court. This Court allowed her to make a representation before the 2^nd respondent and to continue her agency till the representation was decided.

¶27

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and the learned Government Pleader for the State.

¶28

The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute that Ext.P5 application has been filed before the authorities seeking a transfer of appellant's husband to another division. This is in order to save the agency of the appellant. The circulars being that the agency and employment should not be in one division, it is open to the authorities to consider transfer and thus save the situation of the appellant.

¶29

We would accordingly partly allow the appeal modifying the order of the learned single Judge directing the Post Master General, who is the 5^th respondent herein, to ensure that a decision is taken on

¶30

W.A. No.1457/2017

¶31

¶32

the transfer of the appellant's husband out of Thrissur division, where the appellant is working as an agent. A decision in this regard would be taken preferably within two months. Till such period a decision is taken, the appellant should not be disturbed.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V., JUDGE

¶37

vps

Sarojini P.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarojini P.G v. State of Kerala

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

Markose T.G Vs the District Collector

Gopika Govindan Vs State of Kerala

Rupesh Ravindran Vs State of Kerala

The Regional Transport Authority Vs Shaju

State of Kerala Vs Pradeep Kumar K

Food Corporation of India Vs Pallikkal Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd.