IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 8256 of 2007(G)
1. SOMASHEKHARAN PILLAI, GODOWN KEEPER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION
... Respondent
2. ASSISTANT MANAGER, STATE WAREHOUSING
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.MATHEW
For Respondent :SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN
Dated :13/03/2007
O R D E R
K.K. DENESAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No. 8256 OF 2007 G
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th March, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Heard counsel for the petitioner and Standing
Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is working as Godown Keeper in
the Kerala State Warehousing Corporation. The Managing
Director of the 1st respondent Corporation had issued an
order vide Ext. P3 dated 13-10-2006 transferring
Godown Keepers from one station to another. The
petitioner was also included in Ext. P3 order. Though
Ext. P3 order was implemented in the case of others,
the petitioner was not relieved pursuant to Ext. P3
order. This was done taking into account the request
made by him. He had been working as Godown Keeper at
Thakazhi. It is contended that he had to take leave
for personal and other grounds and when he reported for
duty he could know that he has been relieved as per
Ext. P4 order dated 5-3-2007 on implementation of Ext.
P3 order. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed
this writ petition.
3. According to the petitioner, he should have
been allowed to continue for some more time and the
WPC No.8256 /2007 -2-
present relieving order has been issued without taking
into consideration his physical ailments. Medical
certificates have been produced as exhibits in the writ
petition.
4. I do not think that this Court is justified in
taking into consideration medical certificates and
other personal problems highlighted by the petitioner
and interfere with the order of transfer. The
petitioner who is an employee of the 1st respondent has
got the liberty to bring to the notice of the Managing
Director of the 1st respondent his personal difficulties
and seek for a review of Ext. P3 as well as Ext. P4
order. Without taking such steps, the petitioner
cannot rush to this Court challenging a relieving order
issued by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Manager.
5. Hence, without prejudice to the freedom of the
petitioner to approach the 1st respondent and directing
the 1st respondent to look into the grievance of the
petitioner in case he files a representation, the writ
petition is disposed of.
K.K. DENESAN
JUDGE
jan/