IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI THURSDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2009 / 14TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13462 of 2009(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR N.G., S/O.C.K.GOPALAKRISHNAN, AGED 36 YEARS, BUNDARI, MARINE DEPARTMENT, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. 2. DANIAL UNNUNNI, S/O.DANIAL, AGED 53 YEARS, COOK-CUM-BEARER, GUEST HOUSE, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- 1. THE CHAIRMAN, COCHIN PORT TRUST, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN PORT TRUST, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, WILLINGTON ISLAND, KOCHI-682 009. R1 & R2 ADV. SRI.K.ANAND SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No.13462 of 2009 --------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of June, 2009 JUDGMENT The petitioners are employed in the Cochin Port Trust. While the first petitioner is working as Bundari in the Marine Department, the 2nd petitioner is working as Cook- cum-Bearer in the Guest House and General Administration Department in the Cochin Port Trust. The petitioners contend that the scale of pay, the recruitment rules, the method of recruitment, the qualification and the promotion prospects of the posts of Bundari in Marine Department and Cook-cum- Bearer in the Guest House and General Administration Department are different. While so, by order dated 24.4.2009, the first petitioner was transferred from the post of Bundari to the post of Cook-cum-Bearer and the 2nd petitioner was posted from the post of Cook-cum-Bearer to the post of Bundari. This has been challenged in the writ petition, inter alia, contending that the petitioners cannot be transferred against the post, other than to the post to which they were appointed. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 1st respondent, wherein it is contended that Ext.P2 order is W.P.(C)No.13462 of 2009 :: 2 :: issued purely for administrative reasons for effective functioning of the respective posts. The scale of pay and the method of recruitment of Cook-cum-Bearer and Bundari are different. In this case, the post itself is transferred from one Department to the other. Therefore, the incumbents also have been shifted along with the post. 3. I heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. The transfer is from one Department to another Department in the same establishment. It is true that Cook-cum-Bearer and Bundari are different posts carrying slightly different scales of pay. But, it is made clear by the 1st respondent that the salary, which the petitioners were drawing, will continue to be paid to them. This is because, their transfer is only due to the shifting of the posts from one department to the other. I am satisfied that what is involved is only administrative re-arrangement. The same does not spell out any reason for interference. I take note of the fact that there are no mala fides alleged by the petitioners. W.P.(C)No.13462 of 2009 :: 3 :: 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the services rendered as Bundari will later be taken into account for further promotions. 6. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the entire services rendered by a Bundari, including the service rendered, on he being posted in the General Administration Department, will be counted in the matter of further promotions. If that be so, no prejudice, as such will be caused to the 1st petitioner. I do not find any ground to interfere with Ext.P2. 7. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioners may approach the 1st respondent with their grievances and if it is done, the 1st respondent shall consider the same and take appropriate action. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the second petitioner does not know swimming and therefore, if he is posted as a Bundari, he might be put to difficulty. In my view, the personal difficulties, if any, faced by the 2nd petitioner may be brought to the notice of the authorities. The management shall deal with the same in accordance with law. W.P.(C)No.13462 of 2009 :: 4 :: 9. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the leave application submitted by the petitioners will be considered in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. Sd/- (V.GIRI) Judge sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge