Dismissed

Sathish Kumar.K v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Kerala HC6 Nov 2023WP(C)/30003/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The WHC dismissed the writ petition seeking quashing of the petitioner's transfer and stay. Finding the petitioner was relieved and joined the new unit, the court directed filing a fresh representation within two months for re-consideration without interim relief.

What did the court decide?

Directing petitioner to file fresh representation for re-transfer; appropriate authority to consider and pass orders within two months with notice.

Sathish Kumar.K Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV
MONDAY,THE6THDAYOFNOVEMBER2023/15THKARTHIKA,1945
WP(C)NO.30003OF2023

¶3

PETITIONER:

¶4

SATHISHKUMAR.K
AGED53YEARS
S/OAMBUJAKSHANPILLAI
(ASSISTANTDEPOTENGINEER,KSRTC,REGIONALWORKSHOP,ALUVA,
ERNAKULAMDISTRICT),RESIDINGATKOMPATHILHOUSE,ELOOR
EAST,UDYOGAMANDAL.P.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN-683501.

¶5

BYADVK.P.RAJEEVAN

¶6

RESPONDENTS:

¶7

1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023.

¶8

2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023.

¶9

3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT OFFICE, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 683106.

¶10

4 THE WORKS MANGER,

¶11

KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,REGIONALWORKSHOP,
ALUVA,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN-683106.

¶12

SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC

¶13

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON
06.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING:

¶14

WP(C)NO.30003OF2023

¶15

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

The petitioner states that while he was working as an Assistant Depot Engineer of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation at the Regional Workshop Aluva, he was abruptly transferred to Perinthalmanna. The contention of the petitioner is that the transfer is in clear violation of the provisions of Ext.P2 transfer guidelines. He asserts that he has worked in excess of five years out of his home district, and he had worked for only one and a half years in his present unit. He would also submit that he is neither the seniormost nor the juniormost person in Ernakulam district, and if that be the case, the transfer order issued against him cannot be sustained. According to the petitioner, the transfer order has been issued with mala fide motives. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking directions.

¶18

When the matter was taken up for consideration on 13.9.2023, the following order was passed:-

¶19

“The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein, without any valid reason, has been issued with an order of transfer to Perinthalmanna as per Ext.P1. He pointed out that the petitioner had worked for more than five years in the units outside of his home district, and in view of the guidelines, he could not have been transferred to Perinthalmanna. Learned counsel would further point out that among the Assistant Depot Engineers in Ernakulam District Common Pool, the petitioner is neither the senior most nor the junior most. Learned counsel would also refer to Clauses

¶20

WP(C)NO.30003OF2023

¶21

¶22

10.01 and 10.02 of Ext.P2, and it is submitted that even if it is taken that the transfer was on sympathetic consideration, the person to be transferred should be either the senior most or the junior most in the home district/circle.

¶23

In response, Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, would point out that the petitioner having been relieved from the service by Ext.P1 order, no interim order can be granted.

¶24

I find from Ext.P1 order, dated 11.9.2023, that the transfer order has taken effect and furthermore, the learned Standing Counsel also asserts that the petitioner has been relieved. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to pass an interim order as prayed for. The learned Standing Counsel shall place on record their counter.”

¶25

Today, when the matter is taken up for consideration, the

¶26

learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall file a fresh representation before the 1st respondent and requests that directions be issued to the said respondent to consider the re-transfer of the petitioner to the original depot or to any nearby depot.

¶27

In response, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has been transferred to Perinthalmanna in view of administrative exigencies. It is submitted that the petitioner is Sl. No. 2 in the seniority list. The person who is Sl No. 1 in the seniority list is suffering from certain ailments, and as the petitioner is the most competent person for the job, the respondents had no other go but to transfer the petitioner to the Unit where his service was required.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

¶29

WP(C)NO.30003OF2023

¶30

¶31

the petitioner is being punished for being efficient.

¶32

As the petitioner has been relieved and as he has already joined the Perinthalmanna Depot, it would be open for the petitioner to file a representation seeking re-transfer back to the original depot or depots nearby. If any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered, with notice to the petitioner, and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of two months.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶35

JUDGE

¶36

Sru

¶37

WP(C)NO.30003OF2023

¶38

¶39

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 30003/2023

¶40

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS
ExhibitP1ATRUECOPYOFORDERNO.700/CMD
(SPC)/MECH/2023/RTCDATED11.9.2023ISSUEDBY
THE2NDRESPONDENT.
ExhibitP2ATRUECOPYOFTRANSFERGUIDELINES2012.

Sathish Kumar.K v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish Kumar.K v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Ksrtc

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

Santha.K.C. Vs State of Kerala

Jayaprakash P.P. Vs State of Kerala

Sethumadhavan.T Vs Pranab Jyothi Nath.I.as

Jisha P K Vs State of Kerala

Jishnu G. Vs State of Kerala

Suresh Babu Vs State of Kerala, Represented by Its Chief Secretary