IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34097 of 2009(F)
1. ANSAR HUSSAIN, AGED 36 YEARS,
... Petitioner
2. SHINE.S., AGED 35 YEARS,
Vs
1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
... Respondent
2. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY,
3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :21/12/2009
O R D E R
T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.P.(C) No.34097 of 2009-F
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009.
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders Exts.P1 and P2 by which,
the first petitioner is transferred from Sub Centre, Kollam to Sub Centre,
Kozhikode and the second petitioner is transferred from Sub Centre, Kollam
to Sub Centre, Kannur. Mainly, it is contended that transfer is ordered due
to malafide reasons. The orders were passed immediately after the
disciplinary proceedings against them culminated in awarding extreme
punishment by way of placing them in the lower rank in the basic pay of
Rs.2610/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2610-3680, as per Exts.P7 and P8 orders
dated 5.10.2009. They have challenged the same in appeal before the
appellate authority, viz. under Chapter 8.6 of the Kerala State Audio Visual
and Reprographic Centre Rules on Service Conditions of Employees and
Allied Matters, as per Ext.P9. It is pointed out that the first respondent has
personal vengeance against the petitioners since they belong to a union
which has raised slogans against the present Managing Director at the time
of taking charge in the Head Office.
2. It is mainly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners
wpc 34097/2009 2
that the present transfer is also by way of punishment and as the petitioners
are low paid employees, they will not be able to survive with the meager
salary, in the light of the punishment already imposed against them.
3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the
petitioners have filed a reply affidavit also. The first respondent has pointed
out that the transfer is in exigencies of service, as personnel are required in
Kannur and Kozhikode and the allegations of malafides also have been
denied. The allegation of personal vengeance has also been denied by the
first respondent in the counter affidavit.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri P. Chandrasekhar
and Shri K. Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first
respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders
have been passed illegally and arbitrarily with a further direction to relieve
them from 18.11.2009 itself, going by Exts.P1 and P2 and the petitioners
have been performing their duties well. It is submitted that the punishment
itself is meted out in a harsh manner and the petitioners will be getting
monthly salary only at the rate of Rs.3,292/- and Rs.3,152/- respectively,
after the punishment is imposed. It is therefore submitted that pending the
appeal, the petitioners are sought to be punished again by the Managing
Director, by transferring them to northern Districts. they will not be able to
wpc 34097/2009 3
meet the needs of the family from out of this amount.
5. Shri K. Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent
submitted that in Kozhikode and Kannur Centres, personnel are required
and the petitioners are experienced persons also. Therein, sufficient work is
there, compared to Kollam Centre and therefore transfer is purely in the
exigencies of service. It is pointed out that the petitioners will be getting
Rs.7,334/- even if the punishment is imposed and actually they are entitled
for the benefits of pay revision also.
6. Therefore, it requires adjudication on the disputed questions of
fact. The petitioners have got an effective remedy of approaching the
governing body in the matter by filing an appeal. Since such a remedy is
available, I am of the view that the contentious issues need not be gone into
in detail at this stage. By interim order dated 26.11.2009, this Court ordered
that the petitioners will not be disengaged which was modified by order
dated 30.11.2009 to the effect that status-quo as on that day as regards the
petitioners will continue, which interim order is being extended from time to
time. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the
petitioners have already been relieved, which fact is disputed by learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners
7. Therefore, it is up to the petitioners to file an appeal against
wpc 34097/2009 4
Exts.P1 and P2 before the Appellate Authority and seek appropriate interim
orders in the matter. If an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from
today, the same will be entertained by the Appellate Authority and the
matter will be considered on merits, within a further period of two months
from the date of receipt of the appeal. To enable the petitioners to file the
appeal and to move for appropriate interim orders, status-quo as on today as
regards the petitioners, will continue for a period of three weeks from today.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
(T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.)
kav/