IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2011 / 8TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 33811 of 2005(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- G. VELAYUDHANKUTTY, STRONG ROOM GUARD, PADINJATINKARA DEVASWOM, KOTTARAKKARA GROUP. BY ADVS. SRI.K.KARTHIKEYA PANICKER SMT.DAYA K. PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, KOTTARAKKARA GROUP, KOTTARAKKARA. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SC, TDB SRI.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, SC, TDB SRI.M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC, TDB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs WP(C).No. 33811/2005(A) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.ROC.12787/05/ESTT. DATED 29/07/2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. P2: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17/08/2005 BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P3: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC.12787/05/ESTT. DATED 22/11/2005 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P4: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.ROC.12787/05/ESTT.DATED 22/11/2005 ISSUED BY 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE svs T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.33811 Of 2005 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF JANUARY, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner has approached this Court challenging Exhibits P3 and P4 orders. 2. By Exhibit P3 order, the Devaswom Commissioner imposed a punishment of withholding one increment without cumulative effect and to transfer the petitioner from the Devaswom. Exhibit P4 is the order of transfer. 3. By interim order dated 5.12.2005, this Court granted a stay of operation of Exhibit P3 and P4. Now five years have gone after the orders were passed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be permitted to challenge Exhibit P3 order by filing an appeal before the Board. Regarding the transfer order issued, evidently, it was made in terms of Exhibit P3 order and the petitioner evidently continued in the station for the last five years also. 5. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of allowing the petitioner an opportunity to challenge Exhibit P3 before the W.P.(C)No.33811/05 -2- Board. Exhibit P4 is set aside, since by efflux of time it has lost its significance. The transfer of employees are governed by various guidelines and in accordance with the guidelines, the case of the petitioners for transfer will be considered. No costs. Sd/-( T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) dsn True copy P.A. to Judge