Remanded

E. Narayanan Nampoothiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala HC29 Nov 2021WP(C)/15788/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged his transfer arguing a person with less than two years to retire cannot be transferred under Clause 20. Court noted the proposed transferee has less than three years tenure, violating the main rule, and directed reconsideration.

What did the court decide?

First respondent to reconsider rival claims of the petitioner and fourth respondent in light of Clause 20 with reasonable opportunity of being heard to both parties within one month. Status quo mainta

E. Narayanan Nampoothiri Vs Travancore Devaswom Board — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS MONDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 8TH AGRAHAYANA, 1943 WP(C) NO. 15788 OF 2021

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

1 E. NARAYANAN NAMPOOTHIRI AGED 54 YEARS

¶6

SANTHI, KOIPALLY KARAZHMA DEVASWOM, MAVELIKARA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, (TRANSFERRED FROM CHERIYANADU DEVASWOM) (SARASWATHI VILASAM, KUNNAM P.O., MAVELIKKARA).

¶7

BY ADVS. K.SASIKUMAR S.ARAVIND P.S.RAGHUKUMAR

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶10

2 THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 003.

¶11

3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD MAVELIKARA GROUP, MAVELIKARA-690 101.

¶12

4 SAMBHU NAMPOOTHIRI SANTHI, CHERIYANAD DEVASWOM, MAVELIKKARA GROUP, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, CHERIYANDU P.O.,-689 511 (TRANSFERRED FROM TRIPPERUMTHURA DEVASWOM).

¶13

BY ADVS. SRI.C.K.PAVITHRAN, SC SRI.SHABU SREEDHARAN

¶14

WPC NO.15788 OF 2021

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WPC NO.15788 OF 2021

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29^th day of November, 2021

¶21

The petitioner herein, who has completed three years of service at the present station and has got only less than two years to demit office, was transferred by Ext.P4 order. In his place, the fourth respondent was ordered to be posted. This is challenged by the writ petitioner on the short premise that by virtue of Clause 20 of Ext.P2, a person who has less than two years to retire shall not be transferred to other places. However, it is subject to the proviso that if there are eligible candidates, such a person shall not be retained at that station, for more than three years at any cost.

¶22

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the Devaswom Board and the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent.

¶23

Clause 20 seems to be very precise on the

¶24

WPC NO.15788 OF 2021

¶25

¶26

point that a person who has completed three years and also satisfies that he has less than two years to retire can be permitted to continue, if there is no other eligible applicant to that post.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly the fourth respondent is not eligible for transfer. The learned Counsel invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the counter of the fourth respondent wherein, it is admitted that the fourth respondent is working at Mavelikkara group from 13.07.2019.

¶28

Evidently, the fourth respondent is not due for transfer, since he has not completed three years tenure. Prima facie it appears that he is not a person who falls within proviso to Clause 20. In this situation, since the fourth respondent has already joined, the matter needs a reconsideration by the first respondent Board.

¶29

Accordingly, I am inclined to direct the first respondent to consider the rival claims of the

¶30

WPC NO.15788 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

petitioner in the light of what is mentioned above with special reference to Clause 20 and its proviso, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the fourth respondent. Status quo as on today will continue till the date of order.

¶33

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/29-11

WPC NO.15788 OF 2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15788/2021

¶41

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶42

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 4.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 15.2.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 4.3.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9.6.2021 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 11.6.2021 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30.7.2021 FORWARDED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, CHERIYANAD DEVASWOM

¶43

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

¶44

EXHIBIT R4(a) THE TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR TRANSFER SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.2021. EXHIBIT R4(b) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED NIL ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT REJECTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT R4(c) THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.8.2021.

¶45

TRUE COPY

¶46

P.A.TO JUDGE

E. Narayanan Nampoothiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

E. Narayanan Nampoothiri v. Travancore Devaswom Board

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

Rohith Menon E Vs State of Kerala

Mathew Thomas Vs Union of India

Rinku Elsa Jacob Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

T.K.Gangadharan Vs Director General, Central Reserve Police Force

Selvakumar N. Vs Kerala State Financial Enterprises Limited (Ksfe)

T.O George Vs the Director (Accounts)