Samkutty Abraham vs Kerala State Electricity Board on 16 October, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 30191 of 2008(T)


1. SAMKUTTY ABRAHAM, S/O.T.G.ABRAHAM,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.BABU PAUL

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN

 Dated :16/10/2008

 O R D E R
                        P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

                    -------------------------------

                     W.P.(C) No.30191 of 2008

                    -------------------------------

                 Dated this the 16th October, 2008.

                          J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Senior

Superintendent in the Perambra Electrical Section. He has filed

this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer, transferring

and posting him in that station. The petitioner has also sought a

writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the third

respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by him

seeking reconsideration of the transfer effected by Ext.P1.

2. When the writ petition came up for hearing

today, Sri.Babu Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner, submitted that without going into the merits of the

contentions raised by the petitioner, the third respondent may be

directed to consider Ext.P5 representation and take a decision

thereon at the earliest.

3. I have heard Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing

Counsel appearing for the respondents as well. He submitted

W.P.(C) No.30191 of 2008

2

that as the petitioner has already moved the third respondent

seeking reconsideration of the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1,

the third respondent will consider the same, in the light of the

guidelines governing transfer and take a decision thereon

expeditiously.

Having regard to the fact that what is sought to be

reviewed is an order of transfer, I dispose of this Writ Petition

with a direction to the third respondent to consider the grievance

voiced by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation, taking note of

the enclosures submitted along with it, in the light of the

guidelines governing transfer and pass orders thereon. This shall

be done within a period of one month from the date on which

petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the

third respondent. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be

afforded an opportunity of being heard in person, before orders

are passed as directed above.

P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE

nj.