IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PIUS C.KURIAKOSE TUESDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2006 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 32218 of 2006(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ KAILASAN. K.B., S/O.LBHASKARAN, CLASS IV GRADE II EMPLOYEE ON CONTRACT BASIS KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, TRIPUNITHURA. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. LT.COL.(RETD.) K.G. RAMACHANDRAN, MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE KERALA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. R3 BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, J. .......................................................... W.P.(C) No.32218 OF 2006 ........................................................... DATED THIS THE 5TH DECEMBER, 2006 J U D G M E N T Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Majnu Komath, Standing counsel who has taken notice on behalf of the 1st respondent-Corporation. 2. Sri.Ramakumar, making submissions on the basis of the various grounds raised in the Writ Petition, placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shankar Lal (1980 (1) SLR 461) to argue that the power to transfer employees when it comes to low-paid employees shall be exercised only very sparingly. The petitioner is a Class-IV employee of Grade II, drawing only Rs.3500/- per month and the present transfer from Tripunithura to Thalassery will work out in considerable hardship to the petitioner. 3. Sri.Majnu Komath, learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation resisting the submissions of Sri.Ramakumar would submit that Ext.P2 order is a general order by which at least three employees of the Corporation have been transferred from their present seats. He submitted that the person mentioned as Sl.No.2 (Mr.K.C.Manoj Kumar) WP(C)N0.32218 of 2006 -2- in Ext.P2 was transferred from Thalassery to Ernakulam and the petitioner's grievance cannot be more serious than that of Mr.Manoj Kumar. Sri.Majnu Komath also placed before me copy of order No.KSWC/Admn./T&P/2006-07/LB dated 21.7.2006 pertaining to the transfer of one L.Bijukumar, Class-IV employee of Grade-II working on contract basis as the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that Mr.Bijukumar was transferred under that order from Palakkad to Attingal. Counsel also referred to Ext.P3 relieving order and submitted that it will not be appropriate on the part of this Court to interfere with Ext.P2 which has been passed in administrative exigencies. 4. Notwithstanding the persuasive submissions of Mr.Ramakumar, I am not inclined to interfere with Ext.P2 straightaway. However, I notice some force in the submission of Mr.Ramakumar, supported as the same is by the judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shankar Lal (1980 (1) SLR 461), that the 1st respondent-Corporation should not have been this enthusiastic in transferring a Class-IV employee getting only a very small remuneration, from his native place to a far away town. Therefore, even as I refrain from interfering with Ext.P2, I permit the petitioner to file an appeal against Ext.P2 before the Director Board of the 1st WP(C)N0.32218 of 2006 -3- respondent-Corporation. If the Director Board of the Corporation receives such an appeal from the petitioner within seven days of the petitioner receiving copy of this judgment, the Director Board will consider the appeal in the light of various grounds which have been raised in this Writ Petition and also in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court State of Madhya Pradesh v. Shankar Lal (1980 (1) SLR 461) and take a decision. Decision as ordered above will be taken by the Director Board in its first meeting held after it receives the appeal. The petitioner shall be informed of the decision so taken. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (PIUS C. KURIAKOSE, JUDGE) tgl WP(C)N0.32218 of 2006 -4-