IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 26134 of 2011(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- J.SREEDEVI,DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA,RESIDING AT SEE PADHAM HOUSE, KIZHAKKUM MURI,KAVUMBHAGOM,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SMT.K.L.LAKSHMI RANI RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,FINANCE(ESTABLISHMENT.C)DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 3. BEENA.P.NAINAN,DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER CHENGANNUR-689121. 4. SHAJI PAUL,DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KASARAGOD-671121. SR. G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL FOR R1,2 ADV. SRI.EBY AUGUSTINE FOR R3 SMT.INDU SUSAN JACOB FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC 26134/2011) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF G.O.9RT)NO.7201/11/FIN. DT.26.9.2011 ISSUED BY R1. P2: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTEDBY THE PETITIONER BEFORE R1 DT.28.9.2011. P3: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER'S MOTHER BEFORE THE FINANCE MINISTER DT.29.9.11. P4: TRUE COPY OF NEWS ITEM IN DESHABHIMANI DAILY DT.3.10.2011. P5: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.EK1/176/2011 DT.1.8.2011 OF THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, TRIVANDRUM. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.26134 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 17th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The issue raised is only transfer of three persons all of whom are District Treasury Officers at various places. We have heard counsel appearing for the petitioner, Government Pleader and counsel for the contesting respondent namely, third respondent. 2. The petitioner is challenging her transfer from Pathanamthitta to Kasargod wherefrom the 4th respondent was transferred to Chengannur, where the third respondent was serving as District Treasury Officer. Consequent on transfer of the petitioner, third respondent was transferred to Pathanamthitta where she had already joined duty. As of now under interim orders the petitioner also is continuing in Pathanamthitta. 3. After hearing the petitioner and respondents, we do not find any scope for interference with 4th respondent's transfer to Chengannur because he is retiring by 31st March, 2012. The third respondent has W.P.(C) 26134/11 & conn. 2 already joined duty at Pathanamthitta and there is no scope for interfering with her transfer which has already taken effect. So far as petitioner is concerned, even though we are satisfied that petitioner has a serious grievance in as much as she is a widow who has to look after her old mother and she is sister of a Jawan who died in action, we feel her transfer to Kasargod may maximum be for three or four months because she is due for promotion as Deputy Director. Further, even if she is not promoted by 31st March, 2012, she can be accommodated back in Chengannur in the place being vacated by 4th respondent on his retirement. It is also stated that as of now 4th respondent is working in a leave vacancy in Ernakulam and the present District Treasury Officer's work at Kasargod is handled by the Assistant Treasury Officer there. Since Ernakulam is a more important place, department certainly cannot dispense with the service of District Treasury Officer or even hand over charge to the next in line. So much so, if the person who is on leave does not return back and substitute for 4th respondent is required to be provided, then there will be direction to respondents 1 and 2 to provide the post on temporary W.P.(C) 26134/11 & conn. 3 basis to the petitioner herself until the District Treasury Officer, Ernakulam who is on leave returns back. We make it clear that the department need not create any trouble for the petitioner in the W.P.(C) on account of her continuation in Pathanamtitta under interim orders of this court. In other words, her service should be treated as continuous, if she joins Kasargod within a week from today. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge pms