High Court Kerala High Court

G.S.Seema vs The Chief Engineer(Hrm)Vydyuthi on 24 June, 2010

Kerala High Court
G.S.Seema vs The Chief Engineer(Hrm)Vydyuthi on 24 June, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 19783 of 2010(W)


1. G.S.SEEMA,SUB ENGINEER(CIVIL), OFFICE
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(HRM)VYDYUTHI
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR, RESEARCH & DAM SAFETY

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :24/06/2010

 O R D E R
                        ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
                   -------------------------
                  W.P.(C.) No.19783 of 2010 (W)
              ---------------------------------
               Dated, this the 24th day of June, 2010

                           J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Sub Engineer in the Kerala State

Electricity Board. Her grievance is regarding Ext.P2 order to the

extent, she has been transferred from Pallam to Meencut in Idukki

District. According to the petitioner, she is undergoing treatment

for cervical spondylitis. It is stated that for that reason and as

continued treatment is necessary, she has submitted Ext.P1

representation to the 1st respondent prior to Ext.P2, requesting that

she be exempted from transfer for one more year. It is stated that it

was without considering Ext.P1, she has now been ordered to be

transferred.

2. I heard the learned standing counsel for the respondents

also.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner has no dispute about her

liability for transfer. Therefore, the transfer by itself cannot be

faulted. However, for medical reason if she wants to get exemption

WP(C) No.19783/2010
-2-

from transfer, I feel, this certainly is a matter for the 1st respondent

to consider.

4. Having regard to the case of the petitioner that Ext.P1 is

pending before the 1st respondent, I direct the 1st respondent to

consider the said request and pass appropriate orders thereon. This

the 1st respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within two weeks of production of a copy of this judgment.

The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before

the 1st respondent for compliance.

This writ petition is disposed of as above.

(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg