IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 9124 of 2008(J) PETITIONER: S.MURALEEDHARAN DRIVER GRADE II DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENTS: 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE HEALTH TRANSPORT OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICCES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH) DMO OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C).No.9124 of 2008 J ------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Driver Grade II in the Department of Health Services. He belongs to Thiruvananthapuram District. But he was advised for the Ernakulam District on 29.7.2004. Pleading personal reasons, he sought for an inter district transfer to Thiruvananthapuram in 2005 and as per Ext.P2, he was transferred to Thiruvananthapuram District. While so, by Ext.P4 order, the Director found that the inter district transfer of the petitioner from Ernakulam to Thiruvananthapuram is illegal, inasmuch as it was in violation of the orders of inter district transfer issued by G.O.(P)No.36/97/P&ARDD dated 2.12.1991. The petitioner was, therefore, transferred to Ernakulam District and directions were issued to the District Medical Officer to issue posting orders as such. On coming to know of Ext.P4, the petitioner moved Ext.P5 representation before the Government wherein he has requested the Government to invoke its powers under W.P.(C).NO.9124/08 :: 2 :: Rule 39 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules and see that the inter district transfer originally effected under Ext.P2 is regularised. The same is pending. The petitioner has approached this court essentially challenging Ext.P4 and also seeking a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P5. 2. I heard learned learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader. 3. In circumstances where the petitioner has moved the Government vide Ext.P5, it is appropriate that the Government passes an order thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to continue in Thiruvananthapuram till orders are passed on his representation. Learned Government Pleader submits that the petitioner has been relieved pursuant to Ext.P4 order and the vehicle driven by him was handed over on 17.3.2008. He is yet to be issued a posting order. According to the learned Government Pleader, there is reluctance on the part of the petitioner in receiving the relieving order. W.P.(C).NO.9124/08 :: 3 :: 4. I do not think it is appropriate to order retention of the petitioner in Thiruvananthapuram District at this stage. It is for the Government to consider the request contained in Ext.P5. 5. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to dispose of Ext.P5 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent. The Government shall keep in mind Ext.P6 (a) order, while passing orders on Ext.P5. Sd/- (V.GIRI) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. To Judge