Partly allowed

Amina Sherif v. the State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Jun 2018OP(KAT)/197/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala modified a Tribunal order in a service dispute involving a female employee on maternity leave. The court directed the state authority to consider a recent representation for convenient posting within two months rather than waiting for the next general transfer cycle. (136 chars)

What did the court decide?

The direction to consider the representation only at the next general transfer was modified; the 2nd respondent must consider it within two months.

Amina Sherif Vs the State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶3

FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 11TH JYAISHTA, 1940

¶4

OP(KAT).No. 197 of 2018

¶5

AGAINST THE ORDER IN OA 582/2018 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 18-04-2018

¶6

PETITIONER/APPLICANT

¶7

AMINA SHERIF, W/O. SHIHAB, AGED 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT ANOOSHA MANZIL, VADAKKEVILA P.O., MADAN NADA, KOLLAM-691010, WORKING AS UDC, KANNUR CORPORATION, KANNUR, KERALA.

¶8

BY ADV.SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G

¶9

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :

¶10

1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT (LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONS), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695001.

¶11

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, SWARAJ BHAVAN, NANTHENCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA, PIN-695003.

¶12

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J. VARGHESE

¶13

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sdr/18.06.18

¶15

OP(KAT).No. 197 of 2018 (Z)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶18

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. 582/2018 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 18.04.2018 IN O.A. 582/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶20

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL

¶21

/TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE

¶22

sdr/18.06.18

¶23

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON

¶24

& DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(KAT) No.197 of 2018

¶26

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2018

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

P.R.Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶29

The grievance is against the rider placed by the learned Single Judge while directing Annexure-A5 representation projecting the grievance of the appellant to be considered by the 2^nd respondent, to the effect that it needs to be done only at the time of ordering the 'general transfer', i.e, in respect of the next year (2019); the exercise in respect of the current year having already been finalised.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The sum and substance of the case projected before this Court is that the appellant was working as LDC at Karunagapally, when she proceeded on maternity leave from 03.10.2017. The leave was sanctioned till 31.03.2018. In the meanwhile, as requested, she was ordered to be shifted to Kollam Corporation, on 06.10.2017. Later, as per AnnexureA4 order, the appellant was promoted and transferred to

¶31

O.P.(KAT) No.197 of 2018

¶32

¶33

Kannur. The appellant admittedly joined Kannur Corporation on 09.03.2018. Her contention is that by virtue of the mandate of Annexures A6 and A7 Government Orders, the appellant is entitled to get some benefit to have a convenient posting; firstly on the ground that she is to report duty after availing the maternity leave and secondly, some instructions/guidelines issued by the Government to give convenient posting to women, ensuring that they may not be posted or transferred to far away places. It is in the said context, that the appellant has preferred Annexure-A8 representation. The direction given by the learned Single Judge to have it considered only at the time of next general transfer, is stated as detrimental to the rights and interests of the appellant.

¶34

After hearing both the sides, this Court find that no interim relief was possible in the case, particularly when the appellant had already joined Kannur Corporation on 09.03.18. It goes without saying that, on expiry of the leave the appellant has to join at Kannur Corporation. However, we find it appropriate that instead of waiting till the next general transfer, consideration of Annexure-A8 representation could be made by the competent authority in the light of Annexures-A6

¶35

O.P.(KAT) No.197 of 2018

¶36

¶37

and A7 within a shorter time frame. In the said circumstances, we direct the 2^nd respondent to consider Annexure-A8 representation, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The direction given by the learned Single Judge stands modified to the above limited extent.

¶38

This Original Petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶39

Sd/- P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, (JUDGE)

¶42

Amina Sherif v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amina Sherif v. the State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.a.Elizebath Vs the Manager,St.Joseph College

Thressiamma Philip Vs the Educational Agency for the Malankara

Prakash T.T Vs Chief Secretary

V. Mohanan Pillai Vs the Director of Health Services

State of Kerala Vs Abraham Thomas

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the State of Kerala