Disposed

Sheeba S. M. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Kerala HC23 Mar 2022WP(C)/4423/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitioner, a Senior Assistant with KSEB, challenged the rejection of her transfer request to her domicile district. The Court held that while immediate transfer cannot be granted, the request warrants sympathetic consideration due to family circumstances and disponess of further steps after finding no flaw in the lower order's-sanction. Directed fresh representation. ;

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider a fresh representation within one month and transfer the petitioner to Alappuzha if vacancies are available and no senior is waiting in the queue.

Sheeba S. M. Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd. — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 23^RD DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 4423 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

SHEEBA S. M. AGED 37 YEARS (EMPLOYEE CODE 1064266), D/O. SAINUDEEN KUNJU, SENIOR ASSISTANT, ELECTRICAL CIRCLE MANJERI, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED, MANJERI P. O., MALPPURAM DISTRICT 676 121, PERMANENTLY RESIDING AT PUNNASSERIL, PILAPPUZHA, HARIPAD P. O., ALAPPUZHA - 690514. BY ADVS. ABDUL JAWAD K. A.GRANCY JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENT/S:

¶9

1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 2 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD.,OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), VYDHYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 004. 3 DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD LTD., ELECTRICAL CIRCLE MANJERI, MANJERI P. O., MALAPPURAM - 676 121. BY ADV SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB

¶10

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21.03.2022, THE COURT ON 23.03.2022 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶11

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶12

-2-

¶13

JUDGMENT

¶14

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2022

¶15

The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant at the Electrical Circle, Manjeri. The petitioner had joined the present station on 06.11.2020 and completed one year of northern Kerala service (Malabar service) on 5.11.2021. The petitioner's domicile station is Harippad Circle and her domicile District, Alappuzha. In the meanwhile, applications for transfer were invited from the workers. Even though petitioner sought transfer to her domicile District, the request was not considered. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred Ext.P2 grievance complaint, in spite of which, her name was not included in the Grievance

¶16

Redressal Transfer Order at Ext.P3. The petitioner alleges that many employees with the

¶17

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶18

lesser length of service in northern Kerala were transferred to station of their choice under Ext.P3 order. The petitioner relies on Clause 6 of Ext.P7 transfer guidelines to contend that the employees transferred out to far away places from their domicile station should be given preference in transfers so as to post them at their domicile station or nearby places. Clause 8.5 is also relied on to contend that, as far as possible, ladies must be posted to stations near their place of domicile and as per clause 8.23, cases not considered for want of vacancies can be given posting against vacancies that arise later, without waiting for the succeeding general

¶19

transfer. Pointing out that, petitioner is the mother of two young children aged 4 years and 10 years and her husband is working in the police department at Kayamkulam, petitioner submitted

¶20

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶21

-4-

¶22

Ext.P8 representation seeking sympathetic

¶23

consideration. As no orders were passed on the representation, she filed WP(C) No.28956 of 2021 before this Court resulting in Ext.P10 judgment directing the second respondent to take up, consider and dispose of the representation within one month. Accordingly, the petitioner's representation was considered and rejected under Ext.P11 proceedings. The writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P11 and for a direction to the second respondent to transfer and post the petitioner in anyone of the four vacancies available at the Regional Audit Office, Alappuzha North Section, Venmani Section and Kollakkadavu Section in Alappuzha District.

¶24

Learned Counsel for the petitioner

¶25

contended that, even though the petitioner had not completed one year at the time of submitting application seeking transfer to her domicile

¶26

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶27

-5-

¶28

station, the respondents committed an illegality in refusing to consider her request since the

¶29

request of persons with lesser Northern Kerala Service was considered positively. As the petitioner had completed the one year period by the time she submitted Ext.P2 grievance complaint, her request for transfer ought to have been considered favourably. The petitioner having submitted Ext.P8 representation pointing out the vacancies that were available at her domicile district, the respondent committed a gross illegality in having rejected the request for transfer. As per Clause 8.23 of Ext.P7, the online applications for general transfer that which were not considered due to insufficient vacancies should be kept pending for filling the vacancies that arise before the succeeding general transfer on priority basis. In Ext.P10,

¶30

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶31

-6-

¶32

this Court had specifically directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's claim based on clause 8.23. In spite of the provision and the specific direction, the petitioner's request was dismissed citing untenable reasons. It is submitted that even as on date, vacancies are available at Alappuzha and the respondents may be directed to transfer the petitioner to one of the vacancies.

¶33

Learned Standing Counsel for the

¶34

respondent submitted that during the general transfer of 2021, a total of 28 requests were received seeking transfer to Alappuzha. of which, 6 requests were considered against open vacancies and the remaining 15 eligible requests seeking posting in Alappuzha domicile area are placed in queue. As the petitioner had not completed one year at the time of submission of application, she was included in the ineligible group of

¶35

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶36

-7-

¶37

employees. As eligible senior employees are waiting in queue, petitioner's claim for posting to her domicile station/district can be considered only on sufficient vacancies being available.

¶38

petitioner submitted that as on date, no senior who has opted for domicile posting is waiting in the queue. From among the 15 eligible applicants, all except persons who had opted for transfer to domicile station have already been transferred to

¶39

Alappuzha. Therefore, there is absolutely no impediment in the petitioner's request for transfer being considered favourably.

¶40

learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner was not entitled for transfer during the general

¶41

transfer of 2021, as she had not completed one year of Northern Kerala Service on the date of

¶42

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶43

-8-

¶44

submission of the application for transfer. The allegation that juniors with lesser Northern Kerala Service were transferred to places of their choice is answered by pointing out that none of the juniors were posted to Alappuzha. They were posted to domicile stations like Kollam, Pathanamthitta etc, only because open vacancies were available in those districts.

¶45

As such I find no reason to set aside Ext.P11 order and direct immediate transfer of the petitioner. Even then taking into account the fact that the petitioner is the mother of two minor children and that her husband is employed at a different station, the petitioner's request for transfer require sympathetic consideration.

¶46

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to submit a fresh request for transfer pointing out the available vacancies at Alappuzha. On such representation

¶47

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶48

-9-

¶49

being filed, the second respondent shall consider the request made therein and pass an order transferring the petitioner to Alappuzha if vacancies are available and no other senior, who has opted for domicile transfer to Alappuzha is waiting in the queue. The order as directed above, shall be passed within one month of submission of fresh representation by the petitioner.

Sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

Scl/

W.P.(C) No.4423 of 2022

¶54

-10-

¶55

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 4423/2022

¶56

PETITIO	NER EXHI	BITS
Exhibit	P1	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 13.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P2	TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER MADE THROUGH HRIS PORTAL
Exhibit	P3	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 10.12.2021 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P4	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE WISE DISTRICT SENIORITY LIST FOR MANJERI CIRCLE AS ON 29.06.2021.
Exhibit	P5	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE WISE DISTRICT SENIORITY LIST AS ON 29.06.2021 FOR NILAMBUR CIRCLE .
Exhibit	P6	TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCLE WISE DISTRICT SENIORITY LIST AS ON 29.06.2021 FOR TIRUR CIRCLE .
Exhibit	P7	TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER OF REVISED GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 22.06.2021.
Exhibit	P8	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL DATED 13.12.2021.
Exhibit	P9	TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL LETTER, WHEREBY ADVANCE COPY WAS GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit	P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 22.12.2021 IN WP(C) 28956/2021.
Exhibit	P11	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2022 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Sheeba S. M. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sheeba S. M. v. the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd.

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

Mahesh L. Vs State of Kerala

P.M.Abdul Rahim, Vs Kerala State Womens Development Corporation Kswdc

Sangeeth Surendran Vs the Chairman

M/S.Pazhassi Rubbers (P) Ltd. Vs the Executive Engineer,Kseb, Thalassery

Sukumari Amma Vs Dr. Preetha Soman

Hameed.C.v Vs M/S.Sreekovil Chits Company (P) Limited (in Liquidation)