IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 16TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24241 of 2011(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER:- ------------------ AKBAR V.H., MANAGER GRADE -IV, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD, ERNAKULAM MAIN BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.MANU SMT.K.DEEPA (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENTS:- --------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR - 680 020. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (IN CHARGE), THE KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 'BHADRATHA', THRISSUR - 680 020. 3. VEERAS N.K., SENIOR MANAGER, KERALA STATE FINANCIAL ENTERPRISES LTD., PERUMBAVOOR - 683 542. SRI.E.K.NANDA KUMAR, S/C FOR R1 & R2. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24241 of 2011(E) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXT.P-1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.07.2011 ISSUED BY THE IST RESPONDENT. EXT.P-2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC.NO.20756/2011 DATED 11.8.2011 AND CONNECTED CASES. EXT.P-3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS DATED 12.8.2011 EXT.P-4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25.8.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:- NIL. ( TRUE COPY ) PA TO JUDGE. Kvs/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.24241 of 2011-E. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th September, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is presently working as Branch Manager of the Ernakulam Main Branch of the Kerala State Financial Enterprises under the first respondent. Earlier, the petitioner and certain others had approached this Court raising their grievances against the transfer and posting order issued by the second respondent as per order dated 25.7.2011, ie., Ext.P1 herein. After considering the rival contentions this Court disposed of WP(C).No.20756/2011 and connected matters by Ext.P2 judgment granting liberty to the concerned petitioners to move individual representations placing their grievances, claims and contentions and in turn directing the Managing Director (in-charge) of the first respondent to consider such representations within a period of two months from 17.8.2011. After such consideration the second respondent WP(C).No.24241/2011-E. 2 passed Ext.P4 order dated 25.8.2011. As per Ext.P4 the second respondent found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner and held that there is no need for any modification of Ext.P1 as regards the petitioner and consequently, the petitioner is directed to relieve himself of his duties at Ernakulam main branch. It is challenging Ext.P4 order dated 25.7.2011 that this writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is due to retire from service on 31.12.2011. As already noticed, while disposing WP(C).No.20756/2011 and connected matters no transfer norms have been formulated by the respondents. The further contention of the petitioner is that normally a person whose retirement is within a period of two years could not be transferred and would be given a convenient posting near to his home station. There is no exigency of service requiring the transfer and posting of the petitioner. In short, according to the petitioner, on account WP(C).No.24241/2011-E. 3 of his impending retirement from service, it is only appropriate for the respondents 1 and 2 to permit him to continue in the present station itself till his retirement on 31.12.2011. 3. It is true that the petitioner is due to retire from service on 31.12.2011. As already noticed herein before no norms have been framed by the first respondent in the matter of transfer. Normally, this Court would have inclined to issue a direction to the respondents to consider that aspect. In this case, as already noticed, in the earlier round of litigation by the petitioner and the others, this Court issued the directions referred above taking into consideration all such aspects. Evidently, the impugned order would reveal that what is ordered is a chain of transfers. In the said circumstances, interference at the instance of the petitioner, would result in administrative chaos. That apart, evidently, the petitioner who is presently working in Ernakulam main branch is transferred WP(C).No.24241/2011-E. 4 and posted to Chalakkudy which is not a far off place. Considering all these facts, I do find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, (Judge) Kvs/- The last but one sentence in page 4 of the judgment dated 07.09.2011 in WP(C).No.24241/2011 is corrected as “Considering all these facts, I do not find any reason to interfere with Ext.P4”, vide order dated 13.10.2011 in WP (C).No.24241/2011. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial)