IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 19468 of 2011(G) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.S.AJAYAN, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REGIONAL AUDIT OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.RAMESH BABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. 2. SMT.SUSAMMA EAPEN, SPECIAL OFFICER (AUDIT), AUDIT REPORT INTERFACE, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001. R1 BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB R2 BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19468/2011 G APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER DTD. 8/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER DTD. 16/07/2011 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R2(A): COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DTD. 19/06/2010. R2(B): COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 23/05/2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.19468 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Regional Audit Officer/ Accounts Officer in the Kerala State Electricity Board. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 order whereby the petitioner was transferred from Regional Audit Office, K.S.E.B, Kottayam to Regional Audit Office, Thiruvananathapuram. The contention of the petitioner is that the second respondent was transferred and posted at Kottayam hardly within six months of her transfer to Thiruvananthapuram. There is no exigency of service or public interest as has been stated in Ext.P2, it is contended. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent and also the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The learned senior counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the statement to the effect that the second respondent was given a transfer and posting at Regional Audit Office, Kottayam hardly within six months of her transfer is true to the facts. However, the learned counsel explained the circumstances under W.P.(C) NO.19468 of 2011 2 which the said order was passed. It is submitted that the second respondent is due to retire on superannuation on 30.11.2011. She is afflicted with Osteoarthritis on her left knee and she has been undergoing treatment for the past four years. 3. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit in this Writ Petition. Ext.R2(a) is the medical certificate produced by the second respondent to support the contention that she is suffering from the aforesaid disease. The learned senior counsel submitted that it was taking into account the aforesaid facts that the second respondent was given an order of transfer as per Ext.P2. I am of the considered view that showing such compassion to a deserving person calls for no interference especially considering the fact that the said person is due to retire from service on 30.11.2011. Therefore, the first respondent will be at liberty to implement Ext.P2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner is experiencing difficulties on account of Ext.P2 order, the first respondent may be directed to consider the feasibility of giving a suitable posting to the petitioner. In case the petitioner is desirous to move the first respondent explaining the difficulties and inconveniences on account of the present posting, he is at liberty to move the first respondent with such W.P.(C) NO.19468 of 2011 3 prayer. In case the petitioner makes such a prayer, the same shall be considered and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon, expeditiously. This Writ Petition is disposed of, accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.19468 of 2011 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.19468 of 2011 5