IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2010 / 7TH SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 20528 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- D.JAYARAMAN, (DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER (UNDER ORDERS OF POSTING AS DISTRICT TEASURY OFFICER, MALAPPURAM), KOVILAKATHUVELI, THURAVOOR.P.O, CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 3. B.MADHU, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 001. 4. G.PRASAD, DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, KOTTAYAM, PIN-686 002. ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED FOR R3 SRI.K.E.HAMZA FOR R3 SRI.VIJAYAN. K.U. FOR R4 SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN FOR R4 SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER FINANCE SRI.N.MANOJ KUMARFOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.20528/10 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3377/2010/FIN. DT 13.4.2010. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.3830/2010/FIN DT 4.5.2010. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER TO WP(C) NO.14666/2010. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 26.5.2010 IN WPC NO.14666/2010 G OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO.4994/2010/FIN DT 22.6.2010. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 20528 OF 2010 (M) ===================== Dated this the 29th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T By order dated 8/6/09, petitioner was promoted and was posted to Directorate of Treasuries, Thiruvananthapuram, as Assistant Director. According to the petitioner, he is to retire from service on 31/3/2011. 2. While he was continuing at Thiruvananthapuram, by Ext.P1 order, the petitioner was transferred and posted to Kottayam as District Treasury Officer. According to the petitioner, though his posting at Kottayam was ignoring his claim to be posted at Alleppey extending him the benefit of posting at chosen station in view of his impending retirement, that claim was not acceded. However, petitioner accepted the posting at Kottayam, and by Ext.P1, the 3rd respondent was also posted to Alappuzha. 3. While he was continuing at Kottayam, Ext.P2 order was issued transferring and posting the 4th respondent from Malappuram to Kottayam and the petitioner was transferred and posted to Ernakulam. By this order, the incumbent at Ernakulam, Smt.Suhara Beevi, was transferred to Idukki. WPC No. 20528/2010 :2 : 4. Smt.Suhara Beevi challenged her transfer from Ernakulam to Idukki by filing WP(C) No.14666/2010 and in the meanwhile, pursuant to Ext.P2 order, the petitioner joined at Ernakulam. Later, WP(C) No.14666/2010 was allowed by Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 26th of May, 2010, as a result of which, Smt.Suhara Beevi is retained at Ernakulam, and consequently, petitioner was relieved from Ernakulam on 1/6/2010. Subsequently, Ext.P5 order was issued on 22/6/2010 posting the petitioner as District Treasury Officer, Malappuram in the vacancy caused on account of the transfer of the 4th respondent to Kottayam. 5. In this writ petition, the challenge is against Ext.P1 to the extent the 3rd respondent is posted at Alappuzha and Ext.P2 to the extent the petitioner is transferred from Kottayam to Ernakulam and what the petitioner contends is that he should either be posted at Alappuzha or at Kottayam. 6. Ext.P1 was issued as early as on 13/4/2010 and the grievance of the petitioner is that ignoring his superior claim by virtue of Clause 5 of the Transfer guidelines, the 3rd respondent, his junior, was posted at Alappuzha. In my view, the challenge WPC No. 20528/2010 :3 : against Ext.P1 at this distance of time, particularly having regard to the subsequent developments is highly belated, and cannot be considered. 7. In so far as the challenge against Ext.P2 is concerned, although in pursuance to Ext.P2, petitioner had joined Ernakulam and in that sense, has accepted the transfer, still, consequent on the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment, he lost those benefits, and as a result of all this, petitioner is now posted at Malappuram. The facts which led to the issuance of Ext.P5 therefore discloses that the petitioner has a grievance to be examined. It is for the 1st respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner and also the contentions of the 4th respondent, who is now occupying the post of District Treasury Officer, Kottayam and reconcile the conflicting claims of both these parties. 8. Therefore, I direct that it will be open to the petitioner to file an appropriate representation before the 1st respondent, in which event, the 1st respondent shall consider the representation with notice to the 4th respondent and in the light of the guidelines WPC No. 20528/2010 :4 : governing transfers and postings. Orders on the representation shall be passed at any rate within six weeks of receipt of the representation from the petitioner. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp