IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 27319 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.J.SAVY, S/O.JOSEPH, DRIVER GRADE-I, B & S DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALY-683 572. BY ADV. SRI.WILSON URMESE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER(CIVIL CONSTRUCTION) SOUTH, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, B & S DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALY- 683 572. 4. SHAJU.M.P., DRIVER SPECIAL GRADE-II, B & S DIVISION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ANGAMALY- 683 572. ADV. SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB FOR R1-3 BY SC SRI. ASHOK M. CHERIAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX Ext.P1. True copy of the order No.CEC.Mis./2008-09/4125 dated 13.8.2009 issued by the 2nd respondent. Ext.P2. True copy of the letter dated 17.6.2009, issued by the Executive Engineer, Regional Store, Aluva. // true copy// P.A to Judge. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.27319 OF 2009 (H) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is Driver Grd-I working under the first respondent. He was posted at the B& S Division, Angamaly since 1999. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the 2nd respondent considering the request made by the Project Manager, Peechi & Chimmony Small Hydro Electric Project according sanction to transfer the jeep bearing registration No.KEE 3599 along with the driver, who is the petitioner, to the project site. In pursuance to Ext.P1, the jeep was transferred and the petitioner was relieved on 30.9.2009 and the petitioner joined the said office on 8.10.2009. In this writ petition he challenges the transfer mainly contending that the 2nd respondent who has issued Ext.P1order has no power to issue the order of transfer. According to the petitioner it is only the Chief Engineer(HRM) has the power to pass orders in the nature of Ext.P1. 2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent in pursuance to the order dated 16.10.2009. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that he has accorded sanction to the Executive Engineer WPC.No.27319 /09 :2 : to transfer the Jeep along with the Driver who was the petitioner and that it was consequently, the petitioner was transferred. It is stated that the Chief Engineer(Civil Construction) South has jurisdiction for execution of the project in the southern region including Thrissur District and that as per the existing rules the 2nd respondent has powers to order transfer. 3. Although the petitioner has contended that only the Chief Engineer(HRM) has the power and asserted for the position that there was guidelines to that effect, guidelines have not been produced. The 2nd respondent in the counter affidavit has asserted that he has the power. During the course of the hearing the Standing Counsel made available the Board order dated 9.11.2005 which also says that the 2nd respondent has administrative and technical control over the implementation of the project in Thrissur District. On the materials produced this court is faced with the assertion of the petitioner and the counter assertion by the respondents. In such a situation this court will not be justified in accepting one plea against the other. Therefore, the case of the petitioner that the 2nd respondent lacks jurisdiction to Ext.P1 order WPC.No.27319 /09 :3 : cannot be accepted. 4. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that even if a person is required to be shifted to the project site, the 4th respondent should have been chosen as he is far senior to him at Angamaly. Petitioner also contends that for reasons which are personal to him such as education of his children, transfer to a place which is about 70 kms away from his station causes untold miseries to him. 5. Having regard to the fact that transfer is a condition of service, whether an accommodation could be given to an employee to redress his personal grievance is a matter for the 2nd respondent or the concerned Chief Engineer to decide. This is all the more having regard to the fact that the petitioner has joined the transferred place. 6. Therefore, it is directed that the petitioner shall file appropriate representation before the 2nd respondent, who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders as to whether the petitioner can be accommodated at a place nearer to his present station or at any place mentioned in Ext.P2 WPC.No.27319 /09 :4 : dated 17.6.2009. It is directed that in case the 2nd respondent is not the competent authority and the Chief Engineer(HRM) is the competent authority, on such receipt of the representation, the 2nd respondent shall transfer the representation to the competent authority. It is directed that the competent authority shall consider the representation and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 4 weeks of its receipt. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/