Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ALEXANDER THOMAS, VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ
FIROZ SHAH. A – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LIMITED (KSFE) – Respondent
WA/1178/2021
Transfer - Employment - Guidelines Section List - The court addressed the legality of a transfer in light of specific employment guidelines, emphasizing the need for administrative authorities to respect employee grievances and the guidelines, leading to a decision favoring consideration of the appellant's claims in future transfers.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Grade II Assistant, challenged a transfer order made in violation of transfer guidelines, arguing lack of adherence to the stipulated service duration. The case revolved around whether administrative needs justified the transfer despite his short tenure and personal circumstances.
Issues: Whether the transfer order violated established guidelines and if the Appellate Authority properly considered the appellant's claims and if administrative discretion can override personal circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted that while administrative transfers generally shouldn't be interfered with, authorities must duly consider employee grievances and the applicability of transfer guidelines to avoid undue hardship.
Final Decision: The transfer order was upheld, but the court directed that future transfer requests be considered with respect to the appellant's claims and relevant guidelines.
JUDGMENT
Viju Abraham, J.
The appellant who is the petitioner in the writ petition has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment dated
04.08.2021 in W.P.(C) No.3316 of 2017.
2. The contentions of the appellant, in brief, are as follows:
The appellant was working as Grade II (Special Grade Assistant) in KSFE, Prakulam Branch from January, 2019 onwards. By Ext.P3 order dated 02.11.2020 the appellant was transferred from Prakulam to Thiruvalla. The said transfer order was effected in order to accommodate the 4th respondent and the same has been done in violation of Ext.P1 guidelines for transfer in as much as the said guidelines mandate that an employee can be considered for transfer only after completing three years of service in a particular branch. Aggrieved by the said order of transfer, Ext.P4 appeal was preferred by the appellant. Thereafter W.P.(C) No.24272 of 2020 was filed challenging Ext.P3 order of transfer and the said writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P12 judgment dated 08.01.2021 directing the Appellate Authority to consider and pass orders on the appeal preferred by the appellant within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment and status quo was directed to be maintained till then. Without considering any of the contentions of the appellant in a proper manner the appellate authority rejected the appeal as per Ext.P16 order. It is aggrieved by the same the appellant had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C)
No.3316 of 2021.
3. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to
3 mainly contending that the appellant's service is transferable and the appellant is bound to comply with the orders of transfer. Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by mala fides or is in violation of any statutory provisions, the routine and general transfers are not liable to be interfered with. The transfer has been effected on account of administrative exigencies and the appellant has already joined for duty at Thiruvalla main branch on 01.03.2021.
4. The learned single Judge on a consideration of the contentions of the parties held that the order impugned does not require any interference as the same is only an administrative exercise and that all the contentions raised by the appellant have been properly considered by the Appellate Authority while issuing Ext.P16 order. However, the learned single Judge reserved the right of the appellant to submit an application in the upcoming general transfer and directed that in case such an application is submitted by the appellant, the same shall be considered in accordance with the law. It is aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single Judge that the appellant has come up in appeal.
5. In the appeal a further statement was filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 mainly contending that the transfer is an incident of service and there are no mala fides in the issuance of the order of transfer. It is further contended that even though the learned single Judge granted liberty to the appellant to make a request for transfer during the general transfer for 2021, the appellant did not submit any such request. Further, it is stated that if the appellant makes a request for transfer when the window for such requests is open during February 2022, the same will be considered by the 1st respondent KSFE at the next general transfer.
6. Heard Shri Peeyus A. Kottam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and also Shri M. Gopikrishnan Nambiar, the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3.
7. The appellant contended that as per Clause 2 of Ext.P1 guidelines, an employee can be transferred only after completion of three years service in a particular station, and therefore he cannot be transferred as per the terms of Ext.P1 guidelines as he had completed only one year and ten months in Prakulam Branch. The stand of the respondent is that Clause 2 (i) of Ext. P1 transfer guidelines only say that no employee will be allowed to continue in the sa
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
