Transfer guidelines for KSEB employees favor only children of dependent parents, raising issues of discrimination but are upheld due to ongoing disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT Dated this the 25^th day of November, 2025 The petitioner, who is working as Sub Engineer under the Kerala State Electricity Board in the Adoor Electrical Section, is aggrieved by the denial of transfer to him to his choice station.

2. The petitioner states that the parents of the petitioner are dependent on him and the father of the petitioner is 90 years old person who is suffering from Carcinoma Prostate. During the general transfer proceedings, the petitioner opted to be posted at Pathirappally Station in Alappuzha District which is near his home station. The petitioner’s application was, however, declined. Ext.P7 intimation indicated that the petitioner’s application for transfer to Pathirappally Station is rejected as the petitioner has failed to produce the Dependency Certificate.

3. The petitioner would contend that transfer of KSEB employees are governed by Ext.P5 order dated 27.02.2023 which contains the Guidelines of transfer. As per the Guidelines, the request for transfer to domicile station will be considered in the order of priority given therein.

4. Ext.P5 Guidelines provide that severe illnesses in respect of dependent parents is a ground for grant of transfer to the choice station. However, in Ext.P5, the benefit of the said provision is granted only if the employee is the only child of the dependent parents. The benefit is also given to those employees whose siblings are residing elsewhere or abroad.

5. The petitioner would contend that it is highly illegal and arbitrary offending Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is the only male child and two of the petitioner’s sisters are married away and they are not in a position to take care of the father. The arbitrary conditions imposed in Ext.P5 cannot stand the scrutiny of law, contended the petitioner.

6. The petitioner further submitted that while issuing impugned orders, the respondents ought to have considered Exts.P1 and P2 certificates and the fact that the sisters of the petitioner are residing at their spousal home and therefore not in a position to take care of the parents. When a benevolent provision is incorporated in the transfer guidelines, it should be interpreted in a manner in which employees who deserve the said benefit are actually given the benefit. 7. Standing Counsel for the KSEBL entered appearance and resisted the writ petition. It is submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to get a posting at his choice place. The Transfer Guidelines are formulated by the Administration taking into account various parameters. The employee is not competent to challenge the rationale behind the formulation of the Transfer Guidelines. The provisions relating to dependent parents are neither illegal nor arbitrary.

8. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that the petitioner is subjected to disciplinary proceedings and Ext.R1(b) charge sheet dated 17.10.2024 has been issued on the petitioner. The Chief Engineer (HRM) has issued Ext.R1(a) order dated 10.03.2025 wherein it has been ordered that the petitioner may be reinstated far away from his domicile station. The writ petition filed by the petitioner is therefore devoid of any merit and it is liable to be dismissed, contended the Standing Counsel.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

10. The petitioner is challenging Ext.P5 Guidelines framed by the KSEBL in the matter of transfer. The Guidelines give an advantage to the children of dependent parents who are afflicted with severe illnesses.

However, the benefit is given only if the employee is the only child of the dependent parents. The note provided in the Guidelines states that in the case