Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
SUNIL THOMAS, J
JOBY K. VARGHESE – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/28458/2021
Transfer - Employment - Representation List - The court directed the consideration of a representation regarding a transfer order, emphasizing the need for timely responses to employee grievances while acknowledging the importance of organizational decisions in personnel management.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Assistant Grade II, challenged his transfer order after experiencing multiple relocations within four years, citing family responsibilities and an unaddressed representation regarding his situation.
Finding of the Court:
The court ordered the relevant authority to consider and decide the representation by the petitioner within two weeks, allowing the petitioner to remain in his current position until the resolution.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's transfer was justifiable given his family circumstances and whether his representation was duly considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The necessity for ensuring that employee grievances regarding transfers are addressed promptly, balancing organizational needs and individual family responsibilities.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition is disposed of with directions to consider the petitioner's representation.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 13th day of December, 2021 The petitioner is working as Senior Assistant Grade II in Supplyco at Supplyco Peoples Bazar, Sulthan Bathery. He has now been ordered to be transferred to Kalpetta. The petitioner grievance is that during the span of four years covering period 2017 to 2021, the petitioner was transferred four times to different locations. He claims that he has to look after the aged parents and two children who are studying in class XI and VI standard. His further grievance is that though he has submitted Ext.P7 representation on 01.11.2021, that has not been considered even now.
2. The learned Counsel for the respondent opposed the application and submitted that he has been transferred on promotion, which he cannot oppose now. It was further pointed out that all earlier transfers were within the same area, from one depot to another.
3. Having heard to both sides, I am inclined to direct the second respondent to take up, consider and dispose of Ext.P7 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner has not been relieved from the present post, he shall be permitted to continue till Ext.P7 is disposed of.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
Sd/-
SUNIL THOMAS
JUDGE
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 28458/2021 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B.2.2563/18 DATED
28.10.2021 OF SUPPLYCO, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKKODE.
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY RATION CARD NO.2263007620 IS PRODUCED AS PROOF OF RESIDENCE.
EXHIBIT P3 & P3(A) TRUE COPY OF AADHAR CARD OF PARENTS.
EXHIBIT P4 A SET OF TREATMENT RECORDS OF PETITIONER'S FATHER.
EXHIBIT P5/1 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
07.07.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P5/2 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
11.07.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P5/3 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
17.07.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P5/4 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
21.07.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P5/5 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
28.07.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P5/6 TRUE COPY OF NEWS PAPER CUTTING DATED
02.08.2021 FROM MALAYALA MANORAMA DAILY.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF LETTER OF APPRECIATION NO.CSC4-1619/19 DATED 30.06.2020.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED
01.11.2021.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TRUE COPY P.A.TO JUDGE
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
