Allowed

V. Mohanan Pillai v. the Director of Health Services

Kerala HC1 Jun 2018OP(KAT)/200/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an original petition challenging an interim order declining stay on a transfer. It directed the respondents to allow petitioners to continue in Kottayam District pending the disposal of a pending application before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, noting a lien dispute and parallel litigation by other similarly situated officers.

What did the court decide?

Direct the 4th respondent to allow the petitioners to continue in Kottayam, pending disposal of the original application by the Tribunal.

V. Mohanan Pillai Vs the Director of Health… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

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

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶5

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

¶6

OP(KAT).No. 200 of 2018

¶7

OA 750/2018 of KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶8

=============== PETITIONER

¶9

1 V.MOHANAN PILLAI AGED 43 YEARS, S/O VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, POIKAYIL VEEDU, MULLIKKALA, THEVALAKKARA P.O., KOLLAM-690 524.

¶10

2 JITHIN U.M.

¶11

AGED 33 YEARS, S/O S. MOHANAN, THIRUVATHIRA 2, NAMBARATHU JUNCTION, MATHILIL P.O., KOLLAM-691 601.

¶12

3 BINU V AGED 38 YEARS, S/O VASUDEVAN V., CHARUVILA VEEDU, VELIYAM WEST P.O., KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM-691 540.

¶13

4 KISHORE G

¶14

AGED 41 YEARS, S/O. LATE S. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI, KALLUVILA VEEDU, VEENUS NAGAR 20, CHATHINAMKULAM, CHANDANATHOPPU P.O., KOLLAM-691 014.

¶15

BY ADVS.SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) SRI.S.SUJIN

¶16

RESPONDENTS

¶17

1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶18

2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, VANCHIYOOR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 035.

¶19

3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) ALAPPUZHA-688 001.

¶20

4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) KOTTAYAM-686 001.

¶21

BY Sr.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.A.J.VARGHESE

¶22

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

¶23

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶24

¶25

P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶26

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, JJ.

¶27

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶28

Dated this the 1^st day of June, 2018

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

Devan Ramachandran, J.

¶31

The petitioners in this Original Petition are the applicants in O.A.No.750/2018 on the files of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

¶32

The issues involved in this case are not very complicated but are of some portent. The challenge in the Original Application is against an order, whereunder the petitioners herein were ordered to be transferred to Alappuzha, on the ground that they had been earlier appointed through the Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the PSC') to the Alapuzha District, which allegedly was their home District. Even though the averments and allegations in this petition are several in nature, it would be sufficient for us to record the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, appearing for the petitioners that the

¶33

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶34

¶35

contents of the order impugned before the O.A., that the home unit of the petitioners is Aleppey, is completely erroneous for the fact that they were, in fact, transferred to Kottayam along with the post thereby shifting their lien to the said District. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel in effect is that the lien of the petitioners is now in Kottayam and not in Alapuzha, and therefore, their transfer to Alapuzha on the ground that they were originally recruited, through the PSC, to the Alappuzha Distirct is completely unsustainable in law.

¶36

We do not propose to affirmatively state anything on the contentions raised in this petition because we are aware that the Original Application is still pending before the learned Tribunal. The challenge before us is only against an interim order issued by the learned Tribunal declining stay of the petitioner's transfer, as sought for by them, so as to allow them to continue in Kottayam.

¶37

From the order impugned before us we notice that

¶38

the reason why the learned Tribunal has refused an interim order as prayed for by the petitioners is because a submission was made before it by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioners have already been relieved and that they should be now construed to be on unauthorised absence.

¶39

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶40

¶41

We are not saying that the basis of the order of the learned Tribunal is in any manner incorrect because it is the general principle in law that once the incumbents are relieved under an order of transfer, generally this Court will not be justified in issuing orders interdicting transfer. However, the facts of this case appear to be slightly different. This is because the petitioners' specific contention, as voiced by the Learned Senior Counsel, Sri.N.N.Sugunapalan, is that they are transferred only because the respondents are under the impression that their original unit is Alappuzha, whereas, in fact, they have already been transferred to Kottayam along with their posts, shifting their lien to the said District. It is thus not a case of a challenge against a mere transfer, but it assumes a larger connotation deserving an evaluation and examination as to whether their submission, that their lien has been transferred to Kottayam since their posts itself has been so transferred earlier, would garner factual and legal support. Pending such a consideration, if they are now relieved and asked to join Alappuzha, it certainly would prejudice them.

¶42

In such view of the matter, we are certainly of the view that this is a case where the Learned Tribunal ought to have granted the interim order, as prayed for by the

¶43

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶44

¶45

petitioners, notwithstanding the fact that they had been relieved. We are also guided to grant an order to protect the position of the petitioners for an adscititious reason. This is that certain other persons, who claim to be similarly situated as the petitioners herein, have already approached this Court by filing O.P.(KAT) No.184/2018 and O.P.(KAT)186/2018 against the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No.2128/2016 and 1559/2016 respectively, and they have obtained interim orders from this Court, on the strength of which they are continuing in Kottayam. Pertinently, the petitioners in the said O.P.s are also governed by the same order issued by the respondents herein and therefore, it would be inequitable to allow the transfer and relieving of the petitioners herein even, though all the other persons are still continuing in Kottayam on the strength of the interim order from this Court.

¶46

In such circumstances and for the specific reasons we have recorded above, we allow this Original Petition and direct the 4^th respondent to allow the petitioners herein to continue in Kottayam, pending such time as the Original Application is heard and disposed of by the Learned Tribunal.

¶47

Since the matter is stated to be urgent by all the parties concerned, we request the learned Tribunal to consider

¶48

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶49

¶50

the Original Application on priority, as far as it is practically possible, and to finally dispose of the matter, specially because similar Original Applications have already been disposed of and Original Petitions, as above referred, are pending before this Court.

¶51

This Original Petition is thus ordered.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE)

¶54

Sd/-

¶55

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, (JUDGE)

¶56

¶57

O.P.(KAT) No.200 of 2018

¶58

¶59

OP(KAT).No. 200 of 2018 (Z)

¶60

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS

¶61

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF OA NO.750/2018 ALONG WITH ANNEXURES A1 TO A11.

¶62

EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.5.2018 OF THE HON'BLE KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN OA NO.750/2018.

¶63

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

¶64

NIL

¶65

// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE

¶66

V. Mohanan Pillai v. the Director of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V. Mohanan Pillai v. the Director of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Amina Sherif Vs the State of Kerala

State of Kerala Vs Abraham Thomas

Cochin Devaswom Board Vs the State of Kerala