IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 8137 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.S.SASIDHARAN, ASSISTANT STORE KEEPER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICE, THRISSUR. (VELLEPARAMPIL HOUSE, EZHIKARA (PO), NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT). BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR SRI.S.ARAVIND SRI.P.JINISH PAUL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. CHIEF PERSONNEL MANAGER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 4. DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRISSUR. 5. ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MALA, TRISSUR DISTRICT. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 8137 of 2010 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 12th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T By Ext.P1, the petitioner, who is presently working as Assistant Store Keeper at Mala Depot of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, is transferred to Thrissur. According to the petitioner, he is due for retirement in November, 2010, and that at this fag end of his service, he ought not have been transferred. 2. The petitioner has no case that the transfer is in violation of the conditions of service. Neither can it be described as a malafide exercise of power. In such circumstances, there cannot be any illegality in Ext.P1 warranting interference in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, Ext.P1 has to be upheld. 3. However, it is seen from Ext.P4, the petitioner has raised his grievances against the transfer by a complaint filed before the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P4, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall consider Ext.P4 representation and pass orders thereon, within four weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks