Dismissed

T.P.Alias v. the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority

Kerala HC14 Jan 2021WP(C)/29176/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging a transfer order issued by the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority was dismissed. The court held that the order was a reorganization of staff strength due to financial constraints and the pandemic, not a transfer requiring a hearing, especially since there were internal vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the writ petition.

T.P.Alias Vs the Managing Director of Kerala… — 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

THURSDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 24TH POUSHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.29176 OF 2020(V)

¶6

PETITIONER:-

¶7

T.P.ALIAS AGED 55 YEARS

¶8

S/O. POULOSE, RESIDING AT THAZHATHUVEETTIL HOUSE, POICKATTUSSERY, CHENGAMANAD P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, 683 578, PRESENTLY WORKING AS METER READER IN SECTION -1., OF SUB DIVISION OFFICE PALLIMUKKU OF PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION, KOCHI.

¶9

BY ADVS.

¶10

SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU SMT.K.RAJESWARY SHRI.ANIL PRABHA.K

¶11

RESPONDENTS:-

¶12

1 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY,

¶13

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 821.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED Y THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF IRRIGATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶15

3 THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER WORKS SUB DIVISION, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI 682 016.

¶16

4 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, P.H. DIVISION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KOCHI 16.

¶17

5 THE CHAIRMAN OF KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, JALABHAVAN, VELLAYMABLAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 821.

¶18

R1 BY ADV. SMT.MARY BENJEMIN

¶19

OTHER PRESENT-

¶20

GP BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 0601-2021, THE COURT ON 14-01-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

W.P.(C).No.29176/2020

¶23

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dated this the 14^th day of January 2021

¶26

1.The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶27

“i. a Writ of Certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit-P1 to the extent to which it is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner.

¶28

ii. a Writ of Certiorari or such other writ, direction or order quashing Exhibit-P9 and P10, as illegal.

¶29

iii. A writ of mandamus or such other writ, direction or order directing the 5^th respondent to consider and pass orders in Exhibit-P8 appeal in accordance with law. ”

¶30

2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶31

It is submitted that the petitioner has been working in the Office of the Public Health Division at Pallimukku, Ernakulam, as Meter Reader. The petitioner is due to retire on superannuation in the month of March, 2021. While so, Exhibit-P1 order of transfer has been issued by the 1^st respondent. It is submitted that three more vacancies exist even before issuance of Exhibit-P1 as evident from Exhibit-P2.

¶32

W.P.(C).No.29176/2020

¶33

¶34

Exhibit-P3 is a representation submitted by the petitioner against the order of transfer and that the same is not considered by the 1^st respondent. Therefore, the petitioner preferred W.P.(C).No.21640/2020 before this Court. As per Ext.P4 judgment, this Court disposed of the writ petition by giving a direction to the competent respondent to take up Ext.P3 representation and pass orders on the same, after hearing the petitioner. It is submitted that Exhibit P5 hearing notice was issued by the Chief Engineer (HRD & L) contending that he is not the 'competent authority'. The petitioner submitted Ext.P7 application for adjournment. It is submitted that the 1^st respondent never heard the petitioner. Ext.P3 was only a representation submitted before the 1^st respondent, Ext.P8 appeal has been submitted by the petitioner before the 5^th respondent. Pending consideration of the above appeal, the 1^st respondent issued Ext.P9 order rejecting Ext.P3 request of the petitioner.

¶35

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not heard before Ext.P9 order was passed and

¶36

W.P.(C).No.29176/2020

¶37

¶38

the contentions raised by the petitioner were not considered. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that a reading of Ext.P9 itself would show that the petitioner had been put on notice and heard before the order was passed. It is submitted that the contention that the hearing was not conducted by the 1^st respondent is incorrect. It is submitted that since the issue was only with regard to the shifting of post within the domicile district itself, no difficulty of any nature has been caused to the petitioner.

¶39

I have considered the contentions advanced on either side at considerable length. It is seen that by Ext.P1, the post held by the petitioner had been shifted from the Ernakulam sub division office Section 1 to Vadakkekkara in the Nedumbassery sub division. Ext.P1 would show that it was as part of the financial control measures owing to the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and the consequent lock-down that the rearrangement of the existing staff pattern had been carried out. It is seen that several posts had been shifted by Ext.P1. This aspect of the matter was considered in Ext.P4 judgment

¶40

W.P.(C).No.29176/2020

¶41

¶42

also. The representation submitted by the petitioner was directed to be considered by the competent authority in the respondent and to pass orders thereon. It appears that the petitioner had submitted objections to the hearing of the matter by the Chief Engineer, HRD and General and submitted representation seeking consideration of the issue by the Managing Director. Ext.P9 is a proceedings issued by the Managing Director. Ext.P9 specifically states that notice was given for hearing through video conferencing 30.10.2020 and due to the non availability of the petitioner, he was heard over phone. The finding in Ext.P9 is to the effect that Ext.P1 is not a transfer at all and is only a reorganization of the staff strength as a part of the financial stringency measures. It is noticed that the petitioner is a resident of Chengamanad in Ernakulam district. His post has been shifted to Vadakkekara in the Nedumbassery sub-division. The petitioner, who was an employee of the Water Authority, cannot raise a claim that he is entitled to work at one particular station of his choice. Transfer as well as shifting of posts are measures adopted by the employer in exigencies of service. The contentions raised

¶43

W.P.(C).No.29176/2020

¶44

¶45

by the petitioner that he was liable to be continued at the present station itself in spite of the administrative exigencies, therefore, cannot be accepted.

¶46

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the grounds raised by the petitioner against Ext.P9 are not sustainable.

¶47

The writ petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

Sd/- Anu Sivaraman, Judge

¶49

¶50

APPENDIX

¶51

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶52

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER NO. 12655/E3/2018/KWA DATED 05.10.2020 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. EW- 2182/04 DATED 05.10.2020 ENCLOSING VACANCY REPROT OF STAFF AS ON 01/10/2020IN W.W. SUB DIVISION, KWA, KOCHI 16, SUBMITTED BY THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER TO THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 06/10/2020 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO. 21640/2020 DATED 19.10.2020.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF EXHIBIT P3 PROPOSED TO BE HELD ON 30/10/2020. WA ISSUED BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD & L) TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY MANGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY DATED 21/12/2020.
EXHIBIT P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING FORWARDED TO THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRD & L), DATED 30.10.2010 BY EMAIL.
EXHIBIT P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 27.10.2020 BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 13390/E3/2020/KW DATED 21/12/2020 ISSUED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR THE KERALA WATER AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO. EW1- 205/2000 DATED 22.12.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. True copy

¶53

PS to Judge

T.P.Alias v. the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T.P.Alias v. the Managing Director of Kerala Water Authority

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

Narayanan C. Vs the Executive Committee of Kerala Agricultural University

Juju P. George Vs the Addl Chief Secretary Finance (Rules)

P.D.Sanjeevkumar Vs State of Kerala

Dr.Geetha P Vs the Kerala Agricultural University

Sujith Kumar T. v. Vs Union of India

Ansar C.P. Vs Kerala Agricultural University (Kau)