IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23663 of 2008(P)
1. V.K.JAYAHASA PANICKER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
... Respondent
2. CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD, ADMINISTRATION
3. CHIEF ENGINEER, LSGD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
For Petitioner :SRI.LUIZ GODWIN D'COUTH
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :06/08/2008
O R D E R
P.N. RAVINDRAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P(C) NO.23663 of 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2008
J U D G M E N T
——————-
The petitioner entered service as Lower Division Clerk
in the Public Works Department on 24.1.1980. He is presently
holding the post of Head Clerk. The petitioner is due to retire
from service on attaining the age of superannuation on
31.3.2009. By Exhibit P1 order dated 30.6.2008, the
petitioner along with 5 other persons were promoted as
Junior Superintendents, under Rule 31(A)(1) of Part II,
KS&SSR and deployed to the Local Self Government
Department. The petitioner has submitted Exhibit P2
representation objecting to his deployment to the said
Department pointing out that as he has only 7 months to
retire from service, the deployment to another Department will
cause him serious prejudice. The petitioner has also stated
that while options were called from employees working in the
PWD for deployment, he had expressed his unwillingness to be
deployed to the Local Self Government Department. The
petitioner contends that his deployment to the said
W.P(C) NO.23663 OF 2008
-: 2 :-
Department on the eve of his retirement will cause
irreparable hardship and injury, as he is to retire within 7
seven months. It was also submitted that the other persons
who were promoted and deployed along with the petitioner
have long years of service and they are not similarly placed.
2. Per contra, learned Government Pleader contended
that the deployment of the petitioner to the Local Self
Government Department was in exigencies of service and that
the petitioner is bound to accept the promotion and posting
given as per Exhibit P1.
3. I have considered the submissions made at the
Bar by the learned counsel appearing on either side. Having
regard to the fact that the petitioner has only 7 months to
retire from service, I find merit in the petitioner’s contention
that his deployment to another Department at this stage will
cause serious prejudice to him. It will also create
impediments in the matter of disbursement of his terminal
benefits. In these circumstances, I direct the second
respondent to consider the grievances voiced by the
petitioner in Exhibit P2 representation and pass orders
W.P(C) NO.23663 OF 2008
-: 3 :-
thereon expeditiously, in any event, within one month from
the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The second
respondent shall consider the grievances set out in Exhibit P2
sympathetically having regard to the peculiar position in which
the petitioner is placed. Till orders are passed on Exhibit P2,
the deployment of the petitioner to the Local Self Government
Department as per Exhibit P1 shall be kept in abeyance. If the
petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed on Exhibit P2, it
will be open to him to challenge the same in other appropriate
proceedings.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
vsv