Allowed

Sunil Kumar M.G v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Nov 2022WP(C)/2334/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the petition challenging a transfer order on health grounds. It directed the transferring authority to postpone the transfer, conduct necessary medical evaluations, and reconsider the case within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; Ext.P8 order set aside; direction to second respondent to reconsider matter and pass appropriate order within three weeks.

Sunil Kumar M.G Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 15^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 24TH KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUNIL KUMAR M.G., AGED 46 YEARS S/O V.GOPALAPANICKER, SOORYAKANTHI, KAROOR, CHEENATHAMPARAMBU, AMBALAPPUZHA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, PIN-688 561

¶8

B.PRAMOD NAMITHA JYOTHISH

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001

¶11

2 THE DIRECTOR, CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (CAPE), VIKAS BHAVAN, CO-BANK TOWERS, 1ST FLOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033.

¶12

3 THE PRINCIPAL, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES, PUNNAPRA (CEMP), PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA688 003.

¶13

SRI. M.SASINDRAN SMT.RESMI THOMAS -GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶16

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The petitioner says that he has been transferred from Punnapra, Alleppey to Pathanapuram, Kollam by the second respondent, but without considering the fact that he cannot stay away from his home, on account of his grave and debilitating medical conditions, including variations in blood sugar - leading to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia from time to time - and severe cardiac ailments. He says that if he is transferred to Pathanapuram, his life would be in danger because he requires somebody to be with him throughout the day, on account of the undulations in his diabetic condition.

¶19

The petitioner alleges that, however, this has not been considered by the second respondent while Ext.P8 order was issued and that has merely taken note of his ailments during the years 2011 to 2014, without adverting to his present condition, which is far more grave and dangerous. He thus prays that Ext.P14 be set aside and the second respondent be directed to rehear him and take a decision on his request for transfer to a place which is nearer to his home, from where he can travel daily, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

¶20

¶21

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶22

The afore submissions of the petitioner, as voiced by his learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod, were answered by Sri.M.Sasindran - learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, saying that petitioner's transfer cannot be as dictated by him and that this will depend upon the availability of vacancies and posts. He added that the petitioner was transferred to Pathanapuram because his services there has been found to be necessary, because a new lab is being set up.

¶23

However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.M.Sasindran conceded that the health of the petitioner is is important as the setting up of the lab, but argued that this is a matter which the petitioner must establish through cogent and reliable means, particularly when his medical records brought to the notice of the second respondent related only to the years 2011 to 2015.

¶24

I must say that there is some force in the afore submissions of the rival sides because, if the petitioner is really ill, then certainly, he requires lenitude; but otherwise it can only be seen to be a ruse to get over the rigor of a transfer.

¶25

Obviously, therefore, this is a question in the realm of facts, which can only be decided by the second

¶26

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶27

¶28

respondent appropriately.

¶29

That said, I am certain that the petitioner's medical condition must be properly evaluated, including through a medical check up, if so required, before the second respondent takes a final view with respect to the transfer now ordered.

¶30

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the second respondent to reconsider the matter, after hearing the petitioner and after making all necessary enquiries as he may deem fit; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶31

Needless to say, to enable an earlier compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the second respondent at 11 a.m. on 18.11.2022, on which day, the said Authority will proceed to act in terms of the afore directions.

¶32

Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

stu

¶35

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2334/2022

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

Exhibit P1	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2017 PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2	TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 29.9.2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2013 BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4	TRUE COPY OF THE DISCHARGE SUMMARY FROM THE LOURDES HOSPITAL DATED 6.7.2013
Exhibit P5	TRUE COPY OF THE PRESCRIPTION DATED 7.9.2021 ISSUED FROM THE RAJAGIRI HOSPITAL, ERNAKULAM
Exhibit P6	TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD OF THE PETITIONER FROM CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL PUNNAPRA
Exhibit P7	TRUE COPY OF THE LABORATORY REPORT DATED 2.10.2021
Exhibit P8	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.10.2021 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P9	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR DATED 1.10.2021 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION
Exhibit P10	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 8.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
Exhibit P11	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 27.10.2021 IN WPC NO 23303 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
Exhibit P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.10.2021 IN WA NO 1593 OF 2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT

¶40

WP(C) NO. 2334 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

Exhibit P13 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23.12.2021 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT

¶43

Exhibit P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.1.2022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT

Sunil Kumar M.G v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunil Kumar M.G 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

Febina a.P., Vs the State of Kerala

Ganesh Bhat R Vs State of Kerala

The Principal Vs 1. Dr.Jyothsna

T.Gurusaamy Nadar and Sons Maligai Vs K.N.Satheesh

Maya G.R. Vs the Registrar, Office of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Jancy K Vs Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies