IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 WP(C).No. 15622 of 2008(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G. SUKUMARI AMMA, SALES SUPERVISOR,KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. (THANKAGIRI, KOTTARAM 33, HIGH SCHOOL JUNCTION, KOLLAM-13). BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR-1, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. REGIONAL MANAGER, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, IINDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).15622/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 30th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner who is a senior Sales Supervisor in the first respondent, Corporation, is aggrieved by Ext.P5 order of transfer by which she has been transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur. There is an allegation apparently that the transfer is a counter blast, petitioner having approached this Court on more than one occasion successfully. 2. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner is a senior Sales Supervisor and there is a need for a person of her experience at Kannur. It is also pointed out that the Head Office of the first respondent is at Kannur and certain co-ordination work is also necessary. It is contended that order of transfer is therefore, necessitated by administrative exigencies. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.K.Sasikumar, learned Standing Counsel for W.P.(C).15622/2008 2 respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Government Pleader for R3. 4. It is true that the petitioner has considerable difficulties by reason of her transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur. But it is also true that the administrative exigencies may sometimes require the transfer. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that two persons, who have more than 15 years of service, and working as Sales Supervisors with the first respondent, are retained at Thiruvananthapuram District. It is not as if the work of a sales Supervisor requires any specific talents, which compells the first respondent, Corporation, to specifically requisition the services of the petitioner at Kannur. In my view, these matters are ideally to be considered by the Government before which Ext.P6 representation is pending. First respondent being a Government Company, it is always open to the Government to take note of the alleged impropriety and to issue suitable directions to the Company as such. W.P.(C).15622/2008 3 5. In the result, writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P6, hear the petitioner and a representative of the first respondent and take appropriate decision thereon. In circumstances where the petitioner is currently at Thiruvananthapuram, she shall not be relieved therefrom pending decision on Ext.P6. Government shall pass orders on Ext.P6 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs