High Court Kerala High Court

Lovely Bhasker vs The Director Of Urban Affairs And … on 6 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Lovely Bhasker vs The Director Of Urban Affairs And … on 6 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 16290 of 2009(E)


1. LOVELY BHASKER, HEALTH INSPECTOR
                      ...  Petitioner
2. TRIPUNITHURA MUNICIPLITY,
3. SRI. M.D.PRAKASAN, HEALTH INSPECTOR

                        Vs


1. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS AND OTHERS
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.K.JAJU BABU

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.M.KURIAN

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

 Dated :06/08/2009

 O R D E R
                            P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
            ----------------------------------------
            W.P(C) Nos.16290/2009-E & 20291 of 2009-F
            -----------------------------------------
                Dated this the 6th day of August, 2009.

                             J U D G M E N T

Heard Sri.K.Jaju Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner in W.P(C) No.16290 of 2009, Sri.Julian Xavier, the learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P(C) No.20291 of 2009 and

Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the

official respondents in the writ petitions.

2. The petitioner in W.P(C) No.16290 of 2009 is the second

respondent in W.P(C) No.20291 of 2009 and the third respondent in W.P

(C) No.16290 of 2009 is the petitioner in W.P(C) No.20291 of 2009. The

petitioner in W.P (C) No.16290 of 2009 who is working as Health

Inspector Gr.I, in Tripunithura Municipality was transferred by Ext.P1

order dated 31.7.2008 issued by the Director of Urban Affairs from

Tripunithura to Aluva. She challenged the order transferring her from

Tripunithura to Aluva by filing W.P(C) No.24045 of 2008 in this Court. By

Ext.P2 judgment delivered on 30.9.2008 the said writ petition was

dismissed holding that there is no merit in the writ petition. This Court

however reserved liberty with the petitioner to prosecute the

representation filed by her before the Director of Urban Affairs seeking

cancellation of Ext.P1 order of transfer.

3. It appears that the Director of Urban Affairs informed the

W.P(C) No.16290/2009-E & 20291 of 2009-F 2

petitioner in W.P.(C) No.16290 of 2009 by Ext.P3 letter dated 20.2.2009

that her representation will be considered when general transfers are

effected for the year 2009 and that till then the existing state of affairs

will continue. The petitioner accordingly continued in Tripunithura

Municipality. Thereafter, Ext.P4 draft transfer order for the year 2009

was issued by the Director of Urban Affairs on 4.5.2009. By Ext.P4, the

Director of Urban Affairs proposed to transfer the petitioner to Trissur

and the third respondent based on his request to Tripunithura.

Aggrieved by the proposal to transfer her to Trissur, the petitioner in W.P

(C) No.16290 of 2009 has filed Ext.P6 representation requesting that she

may be transferred and posted either in Perumbavoor, Aluva,

Muvattupuzha, Thodupuzha or Cherthala Municipalities. W.P.(C)

No.16290 of 2009 was thereafter filed contending interalia that in the

light of Ext.P2 judgment by which this Court upheld Ext.P1, the petitioner

is willing to serve at Aluva. She also contends that in any case, before

finalising Ext.P4, the request made by her in Ext.P6 should be considered

having regard to the fact that she will retire from service within the next

two years. The third respondent in W.P(C) No.16290 of 2009 has filed

W.P(C) No.20291 of 2009 seeking implementation of Ext.P4 draft transfer

order and to direct the official respondents to transfer and post him as

Health Inspector Gr.I in Tripunithura Municipality.

4. The learned Government Pleader appearing for the official

respondents submits on instructions that Ext.P4 draft transfer order has

W.P(C) No.16290/2009-E & 20291 of 2009-F 3

not been finalised in so far it relates to Health Inspectors Gr.I and that

under the guidelines governing transfer and posting of Government

employees and in terms of Ext.P4 order itself, the petitioners in these writ

petitions are entitled to put forward their objections against Ext.P4 order.

I am therefore of the opinion that both these writ petitions are

premature.

I accordingly dispose of these writ petitions with a direction to the

Director of Urban Affairs to consider the request made by the petitioners

in these writ petitions and to finalise Ext.P4 draft transfer order

expeditiously and in any event within six weeks from the date on which

either of the petitioners produces a certified copy of this judgment before

him. While considering the rival contentions, the Director of Urban

Affairs shall have due regard to the fact that in paragraph 3 of the writ

petition the petitioner in W.P(C) No.16290 of 2009 has expressed

willingness to serve at Aluva, the station to which she was transferred

during the previous year by Ext.P1 order passed by the Director of Urban

Affairs himself and also having regard to the fact that it was the Director

of Urban Affairs who kept Ext.P1 order of transfer in abeyance, though

this Court had upheld the same. It will open to the petitioners in these

writ petitions to file detailed representations setting out their grievances,

claims and contentions before the Director of Urban Affairs.

The writ petitions are disposed of as above. No costs.

Sd/-

ab                                      P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE