Dismissed

Rajan C.A. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC7 Feb 2018WP(C)/3808/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order dismissing his appeal against transfer. The court found that since the appeal application did not mention Scheduled Caste status or cite specific guidelines for retention, the appeal committee could not be faulted for not addressing it. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner did not get relief as the appeal was dismissed.

Rajan C.A. Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 18TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

WP(C).No. 3808 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

RAJAN C.A. AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.AZHAKAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., RESIDING AT RAHUL RAJ BHAVANAM, CHARIVUPARAMBIL, KURICHIMUTTOM P.O., KIDANGANNUR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.K.SHAJ SRI.RENJIT GEORGE SRI.C.IJLAL SRI.R.N.SANDEEP SRI. ASHWIN T. SURESH SRI.ARUN CHAND SMT.B.L.RENJU

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶11

2. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶12

3. DIRECTOR (FINANCE) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004, (APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR ONLINE TRANSFER GRIEVANCES).

¶13

4. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶14

WP(C).No. 3808 of 2018 (A)

¶15

5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., SUB DIVISION OFFICE, KOZHENCHERRY, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689641.

¶16

6. THE APPEAL COMMITTEE (GRC) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695004.

¶17

BY ADVS. SRI. M.K. THANKAPPAN, SC SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

sdr/-

¶20

WP(C).No. 3808 of 2018 (A)

¶21

¶22

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS -------------------------EXHIBIT-P1: THE TRUE COPY OF THE KSEB ID CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P2: THE TRUE COPY OF THE AADHAR CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P3: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTION ID CARD OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P4: THE TRUE COPY OF THE SSLC BOOK SHOWING THE CASTE OF THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT-P5: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 03/10/2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P6: THE TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TRANSFER ORDER DATED 16/10/2017 ISSUED BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P7: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 11/08/2017 ISSUED BY THE CORPORATE OFFICER (HRM) OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT-P8: THE TRUE COPY OF THE EMPLOYMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER ISSUED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, KOZHENCHERY, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. EXHIBIT-P9: THE TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE SON OF THE PETITIONER, RAHUL RAJ. EXHIBIT-P10: THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 16/10/2017. EXHIBIT-P11: THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2017 IN W.P.(C) NO.35849/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT-P12: THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 17/01/2018 PASSED BY THE SIXTH RESPONDENT GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL --------------------/TRUE COPY/ sdr/- PA TO JUDGE

¶23

P.V.ASHA J.

¶24

W.P.(C).No.3808 of 2018

¶25

------------------------------------- Dated this the 7^th day of February, 2018

¶26

J U D G M E N T

¶27

Petitioner challenges the order Ext.P12,

¶28

rejecting the appeal submitted by him against Ext.P6 order dated 16.10.2017, by which he was transferred from Kozhencherry Electrical Section to Rajapuram in Kasaragod District.

¶29

Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer, who has

¶30

been working in Kozhencherry since 14.03.2014. He submits that he had submitted Ext.P5 representation

¶31

requesting for retention in the same station, when a trial list of transfer was issued in 2016, proposing his transfer to Chittari Electrical Section in Kasargod. But without considering his request, Ext.P6 order was passed, transferring him to Rajapuram in Kasaragod. He claims that he is entitled to continue in the same station for a period of 5 years on the

¶32

W.P.(C).No.3808 of 2018

¶33

¶34

ground that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. After filing an appeal against the transfer, petitioner approached this Court filing W.P. (C).No.35849 of 2017, challenging Ext.P6 order of transfer, complaining that the representation/appeal submitted by him was not being considered. As per Ext.P11 judgment dated 09.11.2017, this Court directed the 3^rd respondent to consider his appeal and to pass orders within a period of two weeks, from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Ext.P12 is the order passed by the appeal committee thereafter. In Ext.P12 order, the appeal committee found that the orders transferring the petitioner was issued in strict adherence of the provision in the guidelines of transfer. It was also found that his request for retention in the Pathanamthitta station did not have any merit as he is having the least index among the Assistant Engineers working in both Pathanamthitta and Alappuzha District and

¶35

W.P.(C).No.3808 of 2018

¶36

¶37

therefore, there is no violation of the guidelines.

¶38

In this writ petition, petitioner points

¶39

out that his grievance was not considered properly by the appeal committee. Pointing out Clause xi of Ext.P7 norms for transfer he claims retention in the very same station as he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community.

¶40

I heard the learned counsel for the

¶41

petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶42

On a perusal of the order Ext.P12 as well

¶43

as Ext.P10 appeal submitted before the appeal committee, it is seen that petitioner has not even stated that he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and that he is entitled to protection under any of

¶44

the provisions contained in the guidelines. Therefore, the appeal committee cannot be accused for not considering his entitlement to continue for 5 years, if at all he is entitled to it. Hence the order Ext.P12 cannot be said to be illegal.

¶45

W.P.(C).No.3808 of 2018

¶46

¶47

Learned Standing Counsel points out that

¶48

the proceedings for the next general transfer is going on and the petitioner would be free to submit application for general transfer availing all the opportunities available.

¶49

In the above circumstances, the writ petition

¶50

is dismissed.

¶51

Sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.

¶52

Rajan C.A. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan C.A. v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

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

Dr.T.K. Bridgit Vs Dr. S. Leenakumari

Dr. Usha K.E. Vs Dr. S. Leenakumari

Mr.Saidu Muhammed Vs Kothamangalam Municipality, Rep. by Its Secretary

Sathyanirmala P. Vs Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board

Noufal D Vs the Director General Crpf

Abhilash.a Vs State of Kerala