IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2008 / 16TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 30178 of 2006(S) --------------------------------------- OA.511/2006 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH. .................... PETITIONER: ------------------- K. JAYAKUMAR, APPRAISER, (UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER) CUSTOM HOUSE, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.VELLAYANI SUNDARARAJU SMT.P.MEENAKUMARI RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (P & V(, CUSTOM HOUSE, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI. 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOM HOUSE, KOCHI. 5. SRI.RAJKUMAR, COMMISSIONR OF CUSTOMS (P & V) CUSTOM HOUSE, RAJAJI SALAI, CHENNAI. BY SRI. P.J. PHILIP, C.G.C, SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.S.G. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.Balakrishnan Nair & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ======================== W.P(C).No.30178 of 2006 ======================== Dated this the 6th day of March, 2008. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair,J. The petitioner is working as Appraiser under the fourth respondent in Kochi. His grievance is that he has been transferred to Mangalore without following the norms prescribed for the same. Copy of the transfer norms is produced as Annexure A1 along with Ext.P1. He has also got a grievance that without serving the transfer order he was relieved. He further pointed out that several Appraisers who have longer service at Kochi were ordered to be retained at Kochi itself on their representations filed against the transfer orders. Since the copy of the transfer order was not served on him, he could not avail of that opportunity. 2. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal highlighting his grievances against the transfer by filing Ext.P1 O.A. But the same was dismissed by Ext.P2. He attempted to file a review petition, which was also dismissed by Ext.P4 order. Hence, this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 and also seeking consequential reliefs. 3. We heard the learned counsel for the respondents. Having regard to the nature of the grievance raised, we feel that the petitioner should be given a chance to represent against his WP(C) 30178/06 -: 2 :- transfer ordered as per Annexure A, which is produced along with the statement filed by the respondents in this writ petition. If the petitioner files a representation within one month from today before the second respondent highlighting his grievance against Annexure A transfer order dated 5.6.2006, the said respondent shall consider and pass orders on it in accordance with law, within two months thereafter. If the petitioner files the representation as directed within one month from today, the interim order granted by this Court against his transfer will continue in force till the second respondent disposes of the representation filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of as above. K.Balakrishnan Nair, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 7/3