Disposed

Shally P. Eldoh, v. the Chairman

Madras HC4 Aug 2014WP(MD)/12566/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order transferring the petitioner from Trichy Airport to Gondia Airport. The petitioner sought relief under Article 226, citing family hardships and prior service in remote stations. The court directed respondents to consider her representation within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to consider the petitioner's representation expeditiously within four weeks and not to relieve the petitioner from Trichy pending such consideration.

Shally P. Eldoh, Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.08.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM

¶5

Writ Petition (MD)No.12566 of 2014

¶6

and

¶7

M.P(MD)Nos.1 & 2 of 2014

¶8

Shally P.Eldoh ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The Chairman, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi – 3.

¶11

2.The Deputy General Manager (HR) ANs, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi – 3.

¶12

3.The Airport Director, Airport Authority, Trichy. ... Respondents

¶13

Prayer:- Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in No.A22012/05/2014-EC, dated 23.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to transfer the petitioner to Mangalore Station.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Rajiv Rufus

¶15

For Respondents : Mr.C.Godwin

¶16

ORDER

¶17

The petitioner seeks for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order of the 2^nd respondent in No.A22012/05/2014-EC, dated 23.07.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to transfer the petitioner to Mangalore Station.

¶18

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶19

The petitioner, who is an employee of the Airport Authority of India, has filed this Writ Petition challenging the order of transfer, transferring the petitioner from Trichy to Gondia Airport in Maharstra.

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4. The petitioner would state that she has been serving in the respondent organisation for the past 25 years and currently, she is working as Manager (COM-T) in Trichy Airport and she has blemishless

¶21

¶22

record of service and there has been no adverse remarks against the petitioner. Earlier, the petitioner has served in Coimbatore, Jorhat, Baroda, Cochin, Lengpul and lastly as Manager, Communication Technial (COM-T) at Trichirappalli from 25.07.2006. She further submitted that among these Stations, Jorhat and Lengpul are tenure stations which are in remote location with limited facilities in North East Region.

¶23

According to the petitioner, Lengpul is the hardest station in India and the petitioner, after served two times ie., for 3-1/2 years in such difficult station, instead of posting at native place at Cochin, she was posted to Trichy. The petitioner submitted a proforma for opting transfer to Mangalore Airport on her own expense. Therefore, the proceedings, dated 23.07.2014 which was circulated in the website of the respondent organisation that the petitioner has been transferred to Gondia Airport in Maharastra and to join duty on 19.08.2014.

¶24

The petitioner would plead that she is aged about 51 years and her parents are bed-ridden and they are in need of continuous attention and the petitioner's elder daughter is studying in Kerala and her younger daughter is studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya at Trichy and there is no such school facility in Gondia.

¶25

It is further submitted that the respondent organisation without considering the petitioner's family situation and the fact that she has worked in the difficult stations which are tenure stations. Further, she opted to go to Mangalore, which is also a tenure station at her own expense. Further, the petitioner has referred to names of other persons, Mr.D.Suresh Kumar and Mr.Hari Krishnan, who were also working in the same cadre as that of the petitioner and they have been accommodated within Southern Region, whereas the petitioner alone has been transferred to Gondia. Furthermore, the petitioner would state that one Mr.Madhu, who is working in Mangalore, since 2004 as Manager (Electronics) has retained in Mangalore and continued his service in Mangalore station for 11 years.

¶26

Since these officers, who have not been impleaded as respondents in the Writ Petition, the veracity of the allegations or the purpose for which they are being retained are not gone into by this Court. In any event, prima facie , it appears that to permit an officer to function in a particular station for 11 years unless there are strong and cogent reasons, the respondent organisation could not entertain such request as it would be violation of the transfer policy. Be that as it may, the petitioner has sought for posting in a Southern station considering her family circumstances and also taking note of the fact that she has been served in two difficult stations for a period of more than 3-1/2 years.

¶27

In the light of the above, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 25.07.2014 and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Since no adequate proof has been produced before this Court to show that the representation has been received by the respondents 1 and 2, there will a direction to the

¶28

¶29

petitioner to enclose a copy of the representation along with the copy of this order and forward the same to the respondents 1 and 2 with a copy marked to the third respondent. Since there is no other officer to be posted in the place at Trichy from where the petitioner is relieved, till the representation is considered by the respondents 1 and 2, the petitioner shall not be relieved from Trichy.

¶30

With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side)

¶33

/TRUE COPY/

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶35

To 1.The Chairman, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi – 3. 2.The Deputy General Manager (HR) ANs, Airport Authority of India, Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, New Delhi – 3. 3.The Airport Director, Airport Authority, Trichy. +1cc to Mr.A.John Vincent,Advocate, SR.No.43188 +1cc to Mr.C.Godwin,Advocate, SR.No.43158 W.P(MD)No.12566 of 2014 04.08.2014 ps PA/06.08.2014/3P/6C (IT)

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Shally P. Eldoh, v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shally P. Eldoh, v. the Chairman

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

C.Krishnamoorthy, Vs the Supdt. of Police

B.Vasudevan, Vs the Executive Officer

S. Kannan, Vs the Nodel Officer

R. Mathi, Vs the District Collector

S.Kumar Vs the District Manager

S. Perumal Ramesh, Vs the Tirunelveli City Municipal