IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30191 of 2008(T)
1. SAMKUTTY ABRAHAM, S/O.T.G.ABRAHAM,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent
2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, HRM,
For Petitioner :SRI.BABU PAUL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :16/10/2008
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.30191 of 2008
-------------------------------
Dated this the 16th October, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is working as a Senior
Superintendent in the Perambra Electrical Section. He has filed
this writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order of transfer, transferring
and posting him in that station. The petitioner has also sought a
writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the third
respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by him
seeking reconsideration of the transfer effected by Ext.P1.
2. When the writ petition came up for hearing
today, Sri.Babu Paul, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, submitted that without going into the merits of the
contentions raised by the petitioner, the third respondent may be
directed to consider Ext.P5 representation and take a decision
thereon at the earliest.
3. I have heard Sri.K.S.Anil, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents as well. He submitted
W.P.(C) No.30191 of 2008
2
that as the petitioner has already moved the third respondent
seeking reconsideration of the transfer ordered as per Ext.P1,
the third respondent will consider the same, in the light of the
guidelines governing transfer and take a decision thereon
expeditiously.
Having regard to the fact that what is sought to be
reviewed is an order of transfer, I dispose of this Writ Petition
with a direction to the third respondent to consider the grievance
voiced by the petitioner in Ext.P5 representation, taking note of
the enclosures submitted along with it, in the light of the
guidelines governing transfer and pass orders thereon. This shall
be done within a period of one month from the date on which
petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment before the
third respondent. Needless to say, the petitioner shall also be
afforded an opportunity of being heard in person, before orders
are passed as directed above.
P.N.RAVINDRAN,
JUDGE
nj.