IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH AUGUST 2011 / 7TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 19237 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.G.SABU, PEON, MARAMATH DIVISION, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.DEEPAK SMT.S.SHEEJA KUMARY(AYOOR) SMT.APARNA RAJAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN DEWASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE COCHIN DEWASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680 001. 2. SPECIAL DEWASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEWASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR-680 001. 3. N.V.SANTHOSH KUMAR, 'SATHRAM BOY', MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU DEWASWOM, MULAMKUNNATHUKAVU, THRISSUR-680 581. ADV. SRI.C.E.UNNIKRISHNAN,SC,COCHIN DEV.BOAR FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/08/2011, HE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 19237 of 2011(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 10.08.05 DECLARING THE PROBATION OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS GRANTING HIGHER GRADE TO THE PETITIONER DT. 6.4.2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 31.05.08 POSTING THE PETITIONER IN THE MARAMATH DIVISION. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED 15.06.11 TRANSFERRING THE PETITIONER. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.19237 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 29th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Peon in the Cochin Devaswom Board. This writ petition has been filed mainly challenging Ext.P4. As per Ext.P4, the third respondent who is working as `Sathram Boy' in Mulamkunnathukavu Devaswom is transferred in place of the petitioner and on working arrangement the petitioner has been posted to Mulamkunnathukavu Devaswom. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no post of Peon available in Mulamkunnathukavu Devaswom. Various contentions have been raised to assail Ext.P4 order. I do not propose to consider those contentions on merits for the reason that in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent it is made clear that this is ordered only as a working arrangement for three months. In other words, going by the tenor of the contentions raised in the statement filed on behalf of the first respondent this is purely on a working arrangement for three months and the petitioner would be given a re-posting after the expiry of the said period. Though Ext.P4 order was passed on 15.6.2011 the petitioner is yet to join in the place to which he was posted on working arrangement. Since it is made clear that the said posting made as per Ext.P4 is only on a WP(C).No.19237/2011 2 working arrangement and the petitioner will be given a re-posting, I do not find any reason to interfere with such a working arrangement for the reasons stated in the said statement filed on behalf of the first respondent. However, the petitioner shall be given a re-posting to the same place on expiry of three months from the date on which he joins Mulamkunnathukavu Devaswom. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS