High Court Kerala High Court

T.S. Samod Kumar vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 23 June, 2008

Kerala High Court
T.S. Samod Kumar vs The State Of Kerala Represented By … on 23 June, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 18479 of 2008(Y)


1. T.S. SAMOD KUMAR, S/O LATE T.R.SIVAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH),

3. SMT. V.MEDINI, L.D. CLERK, GENERAL

                For Petitioner  :SRI.T.V.VIJAYARAJAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :23/06/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).18479/2008
                       --------------------
           Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2008

                        JUDGMENT

Aggrieved by his transfer from Taluk Head Quarters

Hospital, Aluva, to the District Medical Office at

Eranakulam, effected under Ext.P2, petitioner has

preferred Ext.P3 appeal before the Government.

2. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned Government Pleader.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

apparently petitioner’s transfer is only for the purpose of

shifting the lien of the third respondent from Eranakulam

to Aluva. He further submits that as a matter of fact,

third respondent is now working on arrangement at

Kollam and if it is a question of availing the services of

L.D.Clerk at Eranakulam, the work arrangement of the

third respondent ought to have been terminated. But this

should not have been done by shifting the petitioner from

Aluva to Eranakulam.

W.P.(C).18479/2008
2

4. In my view, petitioner’s contention in this regard

may be considered by the Government.

5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing

the first respondent to consider and pass orders on

Ext.P3, after hearing the petitioner and the third

respondent, within a period of one month from the date

of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If the petitioner’s

contention as mentioned above, is found to be correct,

Government shall pass necessary consequential orders.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs