Disposed

Rajan.S, v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC27 Oct 2020OP(KAT)/365/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court observed that the Tribunal was justified in vacating an interim order due to procedural lapses by the petitioner regarding a show cause notice. While declining to interfere with the discretionary transfer order, the Court directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three months.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of O.A. No.1530/2020 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Rajan.S, Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 5TH KARTHIKA, 1942

¶7

OP(KAT).No.365 OF 2020

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23-10-2020 IN OA 1530/2020 OF KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶9

PETITIONER:

¶10

RAJAN.S, AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.SADANANDAN, WORKING AS HEAD SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF SURVEY, NEDUMKADU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT T.C 21/957, NEDUMKADU, KARAMAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.SABU S.KALLARAMOOLA SRI.LEEJOY MATHEW.V. SMT.AJITHA V.K. NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶14

2 THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SURVEY AND LAND RECORDS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY, NEDUMKADU, KARAMANA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695002.

¶16

4 MANIAMMA.N., HEAD SURVEYOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF RE-SURVEY, CIVIL STATION, KASARAGOD-671121.

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SRI. T. RAJASEKHARAN NAIR-SR. G.P.

¶19

THIS OP KERALA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27.10.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

OP (KAT) No.365/2020

-2-

J U D G M E N T

DATED THIS THE 27^th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2020

¶24

Shaffique, J:

¶25

An interim order dated 23-10-2020 in O.A No.1530/2020 is under challenge. By the said interim order, the Tribunal did not extend the stay granted earlier.

¶26

The petitioner, who was working as Head Surveyor at Thiruvananthapuram, was transferred to Malappuram. He has approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal challenging the order of transfer. He contended that he has only 2 more years service. The Tribunal has passed an interim order staying the order of transfer. The said order was extended on a few occasions. However, when the matter came up for hearing on 23-10-2020, the learned Government Pleader submitted that a show cause notice had been issued to the applicant with reference to certain misconduct and he had submitted a reply, which was not referred to in the application. The petitioner however filed an affidavit stating that he had not received any memo of charges. The Tribunal however observed that the applicant having not mentioned about the issuance of show

¶27

OP (KAT) No.365/2020

¶28

-3-

¶29

cause notice and the reply, he was not entitled for extension of the interim order. Accordingly, the interim order granted earlier was vacated.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has proceeded on the basis that no further proceedings was initiated with reference to the show cause notice issued as early as on 13-06-2019 to which the petitioner had submitted a reply on 22-06-2019. Thereafter nothing was heard in the matter and the petitioner bonafide believed that the matter would have been closed as there was no fault on the part of the petitioner. It is therefore submitted that the Tribunal having taken note of the aforesaid facts ought not have vacated the interim order and should have extended the interim order.

¶31

Apparently this is a case in which the issue involved is whether the petitioner could be transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Malappuram. It is pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that he was serving at Malappuram for the last 20 years and he would retire within another 2 year period.

¶32

OP (KAT) No.365/2020

¶33

-4-

¶34

We don't think that we will be justified in interfering with an order of transfer at a stage especially when the Tribunal did not think it necessary to extend the interim order on the ground that the petitioner did not mention about the show cause notice and the reply. It is a discretionary order passed by the Tribunal, which does not call for any interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶35

However, taking into account the plea of the petitioner that he has only further 2 years service, it is only appropriate that the Tribunal decides the matter within a short time frame. Accordingly, we dispose of the original petition directing the Tribunal to consider and dispose of O.A. No.1530/2020 within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶36

(Sd/-) A.M. SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.

¶37

(Sd/-) GOPINATH P., JUDGE.

AMG

OP (KAT) No.365/2020

-5-

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶43

EXHIBIT P1	COPY OF O.A.NO.1530/2020 FILED BEFORE THE KAT.
ANNEXURE A1	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIZ.FILE NO.DSLR/1620/2020-G3 DATED 29.09.2020.
ANNEXURE A2	TRUE COPY OF THE OP TICKET ISSUED TO THE APPLICANT FROM THE GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 05.10.2020 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 20.10.2020 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P4	AFFIDAVIT DATED 21.10.2020 FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P5	MEMO FILED BY THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER DATED 21.10.2020 PRODUCING DOCUMENTS AS PER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER DATED 23.10.2020 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL.

Rajan.S, v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajan.S, 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Kerala Government Homoeo Medical Officers Association Vs State of Kerala

Sajith Kumar C.K Vs the State of Kerala

The Administrator Vs Subaidabi C.P.

Dr.S.Thusharlal, Vs State of Kerala

Balakrishnan K.K Vs the State of Kerala

Ahul Sajeev Vs the Commissioner for Entrance Examinations