Disposed

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

Kerala HC17 Nov 2023WP(C)/37864/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns a government employee seeking to continue service at his home station due to medical ailments and approaching superannuation. The High Court disposed of the petition without quashing the transfer order.

What did the court decide?

directions to the respondent to consider the medical representation and take a decision within one month.

Anil Kumar.v.K Vs Kerala State Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 17^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023 / 26TH KARTHIKA, 1945

¶3

WP(C) NO. 37864 OF 2023

¶4

PETITIONER:

¶5

ANILKUMAR.V.K
AGED54YEARS
(DRIVER,KSRTC,THODUPUZHADEPOT),RESIDINGAT
VETTIYAMKUNNEL,WESTKODIKKULAM,THODUPUZHA.P.O,
IDUKKIDISTRICT,PIN-685582

¶6

BYADVK.P.RAJEEVAN

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

3THEDISTRICTOFFICER
KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,IDUKKI
DISTRICTOFFICE,THODUPUZHA,IDUKKIDISTRICT,
PIN-685584

¶11

SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC

¶12

THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION
ON17.11.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE
FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P(C) No.37864 of 2023

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner states that he is working as a Driver in the Thodupuzha depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He states that after serving in various places, the petitioner was transferred to his home station at Thodupuzha in the year 2015. His grievance in this petition concerns Ext.P1 transfer order, as per which he has been transferred to Pathanamthitta depot.

¶17

The petitioner states that he is due to attain superannuation on 31.5.2025, and he has only 1½ years more in service. He states that as per clause 10.06 of Ext.P2 Transfer Guidelines, employees who are having less than two years of their retirement are entitled to continue in their home station. It is further stated that the petitioner is a cardiac patient and is also suffering from various ailments. He refers to the medical certificate appended to Exhibit P3 to substantiate the said contention. He further states that his wife, two minor girl children, and his aged mother depend on him and if the transfer is given effect to, severe hardship would be caused. It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

¶18

W.P(C) No.37864 of 2023

¶19

¶20

a. call for the records leading to this case and issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext P1 order to the extent of transfer of the petitioner.

¶21

b. issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to issue orders to allow the petitioner to continue in his home unit at Thodupuzha.

¶22

I have heard Sri. K.P. Rajeevan, the learned counsel appearing

¶23

for the petitioner.

¶24

Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, points out that the guidelines relied upon by the petitioner would not help him as it says clearly that if the employee strength is more, then the two year restriction will stand reduced to one year.

¶25

I have considered the submissions advanced. The medical records produced, along with the representation, disclose that the petitioner is a cardiac patient. Furthermore, it appears that only 1 ½ years more is left for him to retire from service. In the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that directions can be issued to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P3 representation and take a decision.

¶26

Resultantly, this writ petition is disposed of by ordering as under:

¶27

a) The 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P3 and take a decision

¶28

within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶29

W.P(C) No.37864 of 2023

¶30

¶31

b) If the petitioner has not been relieved as on date, the same

¶32

shall be deferred till orders are passed on Ext.P3.

¶33

c) The petitioner shall produce a copy of this writ petition along

¶34

with this judgment before the concerned respondent to ensure

¶35

compliance.

¶36

Sd/- RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE

¶37

IAP

¶38

W.P(C) No.37864 of 2023

¶39

¶40

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37864/2023

¶41

PETITIONER’SEXHIBITS:

¶42

ExhibitP1ATRUECOPYOFORDERNO.700/CMD
(SPC)/2023/RTCDATED4.11.2023ISSUEDBY
THE1STRESPONDENT
ExhibitP2ATRUECOPYOFTRANSFERGUIDELINES2012
ExhibitP3ATRUECOPYOFREPRESENTATIONDATED
6.11.2023WITHMEDICALCERTIFICATESDATED
23.5.2023AND14.3.2023FILEDBYTHE
PETITIONERBEFORETHE1STRESPONDENT

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar.v.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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vinay Shankar C P Vs Punjab National Bank

Byju v.Y., Vs the Kerala State Electricity Board - Kseb

Aboobacker C.P. Vs Kerala State Centre for Advanced Printing and Training

M.Giridharan Vs State of Kerala

Bijesh Vs the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Sujala S. Kumari Vs State of Kerala