Disposed

Byju Varghese v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC8 Sept 2020WP(C)/16308/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged proposed transfer to a sub-station while suffering from Lymphoma. Court directed respondents to hear petitioner and 5th respondent to reach a final decision on postings, maintaining existing interim stay.

What did the court decide?

Petition ordered directing respondents to hear petitioner and 5th respondent for final decision on postings. Interim stay on transfer continued.

Byju Varghese Vs Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 08TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2020 / 17TH BHADRA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020(K)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

BYJU VARGHESE, AGED 48 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER(EMPLOYEE CODE 1049206) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ELECTRICAL SECTION, OKKAL, ERNAKULAM 683550, RESIDING AT MANJAMKUDY (H), MUNDAKUZHAL P.O, ERNAKULAM 683546

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ SRI.VARUN C.VIJAY KUM.A.ARUNA KUM.THULASI K. RAJ SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHIBHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶11

2 THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶12

3 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, REPRESENTED BY THE COMPANY SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001

¶13

4 CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004

¶14

5 LALU JOSE, EMPLOYEE CODE 1047887 ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

¶15

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 2

¶16

OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, IDAMALAYAR, GENERATION DIVISION, ERNAKULAM 686 681

¶17

BY ADVS. R1-4 BY SMT.ANEETHA A.G., SC, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED SRI. A.G ANITHA SC

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.09.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 3

¶20

JUDGMENT

¶21

The petitioner says that he is presently

¶22

working as the Assistant Engineer with the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB for short), in its Electrical Section, Okkal, Ernakulam. He has filed this writ petition against his proposed transfer to Rayonpuram Sub Station and he says that this is illegal since he is entitled to the benefit of being retained in his present station for various reasons, including that he is suffering from Lymphoma. He also says that the 5^th respondent, who is now been sought to be transferred to his position at Okkal, had in fact sought for being posted to Rayonpuram and that, instead of doing so, he has now been shifted to Okkal, while the petitioner has been shifted to Rayonpuram. He prays that, therefore, his orders of transfer, namely Exts.P4 and P8, be set aside to the extent to which it applies to him and that he be directed to be retained at his present station at Okkal.

¶23

In response to the afore submissions

¶24

made on behalf of the petitioner by his learned

¶25

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 4

¶26

counsel Shri.Varun C.Vijay, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB, Smt.Anitha.A.G., submitted that the proposed transfer of the petitioner is only because he had submitted Exhibit P5(2) certificate from his Oncologist before the competent Authority of the KSEB, as per which, he has to be accommodated in “light duties”. She

¶27

says that it is only, therefore, that the petitioner has been now shifted to the 110 KV Sub Station at Rayonpuram, from the Electrical

¶28

Section at Okkal, where he was constantly exposed to the general public.

¶29

Even when I hear Smt.Anitha on the afore lines, it is evident from Ext.P6 that the petitioner is certainly entitled to protection from transfer on account of the fact that he is suffering from a severe illness. Further, Ext.P7 shows that respondent No.5, Shri.Lalu Jose, had sought for a transfer to Rayonpuram, but that he is now been proposed to be posted at Okkal, where the petitioner is presently working. I see absolutely no reason why the petitioner should be shifted to Rayonpuram to accommodate the 5^th

¶30

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 5

¶31

respondent at Okkal, when the latter had, in fact, sought for being accommodated at Rayonpuram.

¶32

not be possible for this Court to speak on these issues affirmatively at this stage, since these are to be considered and decided by the competent Authorities in terms of law at the first instance.

¶33

I, therefore, asked Smt.Anitha as to if

¶34

the competent Authority of the KSEB can look into these aspects, particularly adverting to the medical condition of the petitioner, to which she fairly submitted that they are willing to hear the petitioner and the 5^th respondent and take a final decision.

¶35

I notice that when this writ petition

¶36

was admitted on 10.08. 2020 , an order of stay of the petitioner's transfer had been granted and that he thus continues at Okkal even now. I am, therefore, of the firm view that this position should continue until such time as the competent

¶37

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 6

¶38

among the respondents hear the petitioner and the 5^th respondent, leading to a final decision on their postings as per law.

¶39

Resultantly, this writ petition is ordered, directing the competent among the respondents to hear the petitioner and the 5^th respondent – either physically or through video conferencing - to then culminate in a final decision as to their postings.

¶40

The interim order granted by this Court on 10.08.2020 will continue to be in effect until such time as the afore exercise is completed and the resultant order communicated to the petitioner.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

MC/9.9.2020

¶45

WP(C).No.16308 OF 2020 7

¶46

APPENDIX

¶47

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ORDER NO. EB1(A)/AE/(ELE)/GENERAL TRANSFER 2018 DATED 02-06-2018 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 03-06- 2020 ALONG WITH MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 27-05-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT REQUESTING TO RETAIN HIM IN HIS PRESENT STATION
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KSEB.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE RELVEVNT PART OF THE ORDER NO. EB1(A)/AE/(ELE)/GENERAL TRANSFER 2020/DRAFT ORDER DATED 30-07-2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 03-08-2020 ALONG WITH THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 01-08-2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE DISTRICT WISE RANK LIST DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KSEB OF PERSONS WHO ARE ENTITLED FOR PROTECTION OF TRANSFER
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT WITH THE LIST OF INCUMBENTS WHO HAD OPTED FOR A TRANSFER TO RAYONPURAM, 110KV SUBSTATION DOWNLOADED FROM THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE KSEB.
EXHIBIT P8 RESPONDENT'S/S E	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PART OF THE TRANSFER ORDER NO. EB1(A)/AE/(ELE)/GENERAL TRANSFER 2020/FINAL ORDER DATED 07-08-2020 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. XHIBITS:
NIL
MC
	(TRUE COPY) PA TO JUDGE

Byju Varghese v. Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Byju Varghese 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

P.K. Prakash Vs Deputy Director of Higher Education Kottayam

Rukmani @ Balamani Amma Vs Accountant General (a and E) of Kerala

K.K.Kurian, Vs the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd.

Arjuna M., Vs the Director

Vinu Paul Vs the State of Kerala

Ashik K. Moosa, Vs the Director