Allowed

Rajesh K. v. the Kseb Limited

Kerala HC5 Jan 2021WP(C)/24/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought a direction to the Kerala State Electricity Board to consider his representation for a transfer to Ernakulam based on completed outstation service and family circumstances. The Court directed the respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Rajesh K. Vs the Kseb Limited — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 05TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 15TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.24 OF 2021(C)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

RAJESH K. MAZDOOR, CODE NO.1102175, KSEB LTD., MAVELIKKARA ELECTRICAL SECTION, RESIDING AT KOCHENCHERIL VEEDU, S.N.JUNCTION, PALLURUTHY POST-682006, KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAMOHANAN SMT. AISWARYA V.S.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE KSEB LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶11

2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM), KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, VYDYUTHIBHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶12

BY SRI.M.K.THANKAPPAN, SC,KSEB

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C).No.24 OF 2021(C) 2

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 5th day of January 2021

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

i. To issue a writ of mandamus, order or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 2^nd respondent to consider Exhibit P5 representation, within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;

¶19

ii. To declare that the petitioner is entitled to a transfer to the Ernakulam Geographical Area on the grounds that the petitioner has completed 5 years of outstation service, he belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community and that his wife is employed in the Defence Service at Ernakulam and she is physically challenged on account of Locomotor Disability to the extent of 50 per cent;

¶20

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶21

Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that

¶23

seeking orders with regard to the general transfer, the petitioner has

¶24

WP(C).No.24 OF 2021(C) 3

¶25

approached the 2^nd respondent preferring Ext.P5 representation. It is

¶26

submitted that the said representation is liable to be considered in

¶27

accordance with law.

¶28

There will accordingly be a direction to the 2^nd respondent to

¶29

take up, consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 representation, within a

¶30

period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

The writ petition is ordered accordingly.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE

6/1/2021

WP(C).No.24 OF 2021(C) 4

¶36

APPENDIX

¶37

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶38

EXHIBIT P1	THE TRUE EXTRACT OF T PROCEEDINGS NO.EBEW/G 30.09.2020 OF THE 2ND	HE TRANSFER ORDER, T/2020 DATED RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE GENERAL HOSPITAL NO.C2-MB/2044/19 DATE	DISABILITY THE MEDICAL BOARD OF ERNAKULAM, BEARING D 17.10.2019.
EXHIBIT P3	THE TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE NO.103/34 ISSUED BY THE GARRISO MILITARY ENGINEERING KOCHI TO THE WIFE OF	EMPLOYMENT 1/E1 DATED 10.10.2020 N ENGINEER, KOCHI SERVICE, NAVAL BASE, PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 12.10.2020 OF THE WIF TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT	REPRESENTATION DATED E OF THE PETITIONER .
EXHIBIT P5	THE TRUE COPY OF THE 29.12.2020 OF THE PET 2ND RESPONDENT.	REPRESENTATION DATED ITIONER BEFORE THE

¶39

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL

¶40

[True copy]

¶41

P.A to Judge

¶42

Rajesh K. v. the Kseb Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh K. v. the Kseb Limited

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

Ajay Krishnan Vs Union of India

Gokul v. Nath Vs Union of India

K. Mahadevan, Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Kerala State Textiles Corporation Ltd. Vs Asha P.Gopinath

Appukuttan T., Vs Kerala Water Authority

Kavitha Sudhakar P Vs the Government of India