IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2009 / 9TH BHADRA 1931 WA.No. 1978 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.21597/2009 Dated 28/08/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ C.R.NEELAKANDAN NAMBOODIRI, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, KELTRON CONTROL, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 534. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KELTRON HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KELTRON HOUSE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GP MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. -------------------------------------------------------- WA NO.1978 OF 2009 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated 31st August 2009 Judgment SURENDRA MOHAN, J. This Writ Appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge on 28.8.2009. As per the said order, the appellant's request for stay of his transfer order till the Writ Petition is finally heard, has been declined by this court. 2. The appellant filed the Writ Petition, challenging his transfer from Aroor to Hyderabad. At the time of admitting the Writ Petition, an interim order of stay of his transfer from Aroor to Hyderabad was granted for a period of two months or till the repair works of INS Viraat, with which the appellant was associated was completed, whichever was earlier. Accordingly, the appellant continued at Aroor. Subsequently, the application for stay was heard in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. It was submitted that the repair works of INS Viraat was already completed. However, the appellant further pointed out that he WA NO.1978/2009 2 was involved with the repair works of various other vessels including Navy ships, the repair works of which were still remaining incomplete. Therefore, it was contended that the appellant's transfer order may be kept in abeyance until all such pending works were over. However, the learned Single Judge declined to accept the said contentions. According to the learned Single Judge, from the very nature of the order that was passed on 30.07.2009, it was evident that the appellant would have to join duty at Hyderabad after the repair works of INS Viraat were completed. Therefore, the learned Single Judge declined to make the interim order absolute. However, taking note of the fact that the Onam festival was fast approaching, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge that if the appellant makes a request to respondents 2 and 3 for extension of his joining time, such extension would be granted till 7.9.2009 to join duty at Hyderabad. The said order is under challenge before us. 3. We have heard the learned counsel Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, who appears for the appellant and the learned Government WA NO.1978/2009 3 Pleader, who appears for the 1st respondent State. Though it is represented that a copy of the Writ Appeal was sent to the learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 under certificate of posting, none appear for the said respondents. 4. We have anxiously considered the contentions advanced by the contesting counsel. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. The requirements of service and the exigencies of his work as well as the nature of the duties to be discharged by the appellant, are best left to the judgment of his superiors. It is only when clear instances of mala fides are proved before this court that any interference with such transfer orders are normally made. We note that serious allegations are made in the Writ Petition, which will have to be considered on merits by the learned Single Judge. Until such a consideration is actually made, it is not possible to find out whether the allegations made by the appellant are justified or not. We note that the Writ Petition has been posted to 09.09.2009 for hearing. However, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the WA NO.1978/2009 4 father of the appellant is aged 90 years, that he is suffering from prostrate cancer and that he has been admitted to the hospital in a sinking stage. Under these circumstances, a fervent appeal is made by the learned counsel for the appellant for the grant of at least some time to join duty at Hyderabad. It is open to the appellant to make a request to respondents 2 and 3 for a suitable extension of his joining time. We are sure that considering the pathetic situation in which the appellant is placed, any such request would be sympathetically considered by respondents 2 and 3 and a suitable extension of the joining time would be granted. 5. Considering the exigencies of the situation, we post the Writ Petition before the learned Single Judge to be heard on 7.9.2009 itself. We have no doubt that the learned Single Judge would make every endeavour to finally dispose of the Writ Petition on the said day or shortly thereafter, depending on the pressure of work in the court. Considering his pathetic situation, we direct that the appellant shall not be relieved till 7.9.2009. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the WA NO.1978/2009 5 merits of the case. 6. Subject to the above direction, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sta WA NO.1978/2009 6