Remanded

Sujithra M., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2022WP(C)/23478/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this writ petition directed the employer to reconsider the petitioner's transfer from Palakkad to Thrissur district. The court ordered that the petitioner's claim be reviewed by considering her grievances and her husband's employment in Palakkad, within three weeks, without invalidating her failure to submit an option online.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the employer to consider the petitioner's detailed representation regarding retention in Palakkad within three weeks.

Sujithra M., Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 23RD BHADRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SUJITHRA M., AGED 33 YEARS WO SAJEEV V.K., VALIYAMMAKAVU HOUSE, PIRAYIRI.P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT

¶8

BY ADVS. K.M.ANEESH K.SANTHOSH KUMAR (KALIYANAM) ADARSH KUMAR DILEEP CHANDRAN SHASHANK DEVAN

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695 001 2 INFORMATION KERALA MISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SWARAJ BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003

¶11

3 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INFORMATION KERALA MISSION, SWARAJ BHAVAN, GROUND FLOOR, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR P.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 003 BY ADVS. SITHARA.S V.S.NOWSHAD SUNIL KURIAKOSE-GP

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 14^th day of September, 2022

¶17

This writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶18

i. Call for records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P9 and P10 and thereby issue a writ of certiorari or such other order or direction quashing exhibit P10 by which the petitioner is arbitrarily and unfairly transferred to Thrissur District under the services of 2^nd respondent.

¶19

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to retain, under the services of the 2^nd respondent, the petitioner in the station/district of Palakkad in light of exhibits P2, P4 and P5 orders.

¶20

iii. Issue a writ of mandamus or such other order or direction directing the 3^rd respondent to reconsider Exhibit P8 objection filed by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned

¶22

Government Pleader as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3.

¶23

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶24

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶25

¶26

the petitioner, who is working as Technical Officer, Grade III under the 2^nd respondent was entitled to be retained in Palakkad in the general transfer, in view of the fact that she had about 5 years of outstation service. It is submitted that in view of Ext.P6 communication which was issued on 19/5/2022 the petitioner had not made any request for transfer. However, the petitioner was transferred out to Thrissur District without considering her claims.

¶27

A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the respondents contending that the petitioner had been working in Palakkad district itself from 2015 onwards and that only 5% of the staff strength could be set apart for retention of eligible employees on compassionate grounds. It is submitted that other employees who had better claims had already been retained on compassionate grounds and therefore the petitioner was liable to be transferred out. It is further submitted that the petitioner had not submitted any options for being retained at Palakkad in the online transfer process, which is the reason why the petitioner has been transferred out.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there

¶29

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶30

¶31

are vacancies available in Palakkad to retain the petitioner and that the petitioner is entitled to retention in terms of the guidelines produced as Ext.P2. It is further contended that it is only on account of Ext.P6 communication that the petitioner did not submit any options in the online transfer process.

¶32

Having considered the contentions advanced on either side, I am of the opinion that the issue with regard to the transfer of an employee is a matter for the employer to consider, taking note of the grievances raised as also the transfer policies. There will accordingly be a direction that in case the petitioner approaches the 2^nd respondent with a detailed representation, pointing out her grievances as against the order transferring her out from Palakkad, the same shall be considered without raising the objection that the contention that the petitioner had not submitted an option to remain at Palakkad. The claim of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with Ext.P2 transfer policy and considering the fact that the petitioner's husband is also employed with the Mission in Palakkad District. Appropriate orders shall be passed after hearing

¶33

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶34

¶35

the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date on which the petitioner submits the representation along with a copy of this judgment.

Sd/-

ANU SIVARAMAN

JUDGE

ska

WP(C) NO. 23478 OF 2022

¶41

¶42

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 23478/2022

¶43

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶44

Exhibit P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE INTER-CASTE MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE TAHSILDAR, PALAKKD
Exhibit P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 127/E1/2022/IKM DATED 8-03-2022
Exhibit P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. GO (P) NO. 3/2017/P & ARD DATED 25-02-2017 APPLICABLE TO THE GENERAL TRANSFER OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS
Exhibit P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO.( MS ) NO. 106/76/PD DATED 1-04-1976
Exhibit P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (P) NO. 1/2005/P & A RD DATED 4.1.2005.
Exhibit P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 307/E1/2022/IKM DATED 19-052022 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. E
Exhibit P7	A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAFT LIST OF THE EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL TRANSFER 2022-23.
Exhibit P8	A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER AGAINST EXHIBIT P7 DATED 5.07.2022.
Exhibit P9	A TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE FINAL LIST OF THE EMPLOYEES INCLUDED IN THE GENERAL TRANSFER
Exhibit P10	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 16-07- 2022 TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER FROM PALAKKAD DISTRICT TO THRISSUR DISTRICT

Sujithra M., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sujithra M., 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.K.Radhakrishnan, Vs State of Kerala

Prasobh G. Vs Travancore Devaswom Board

Manapuram Roofings Vs the Head Load Workers Union (Citu)

Ashok Kumar a. Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh IAS

T.C.Biju Vs Rahesh Kumar.R, Thrissur Corporation

Unnikrishnan Vs Sri. Vibhushanan