IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34108 of 2008(I) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------------------- MARY JESLET PP,U.D.TYPIST, KSHEERA VIKASSANA DEPARTMENT, 9U.D.TYPIST), KSHEERA TRAINING DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SMT.SANDHYA RAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. GOVERNMENT SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (DAIRY, SECRETARIAT), TRIVANDRUM. 2. DAIRY DIRECTOR, KSHEERA DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 3. K.V.SAROJINI, SELECTION GRADE TYPIST, KSHEERA DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 34108 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Smt.Sandhya Raju, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Upper Division Typist in the Dairy Development Department. She belongs to Chandiroor in Alappuzha district. While the petitioner was working as Upper Division Typist in the Dairy Training Center at Kottayam, she submitted Ext.P1 representation dated 12-6-2008 to the Director of Dairy Development seeking transfer and posting in the office of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development at Ernakulam. In the alternative she sought a transfer to Alappuzha. By Ext.P2 order passed on 2-7-2008 the petitioner's request was granted and she was transferred and posted as Upper Division Typist in the office of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development at Ernakulam and the the third respondent was transferred to Kottayam. The petitioner's grievance is that within three days thereafter, by Ext.P3 order dated 5-7-2008 the transfer ordered as per Ext.P2 was cancelled. 3. The petitioner submits that she was forced to apply for transfer to Ernakulam due to the fact that she is undergoing treatment at the Government Ayurveda Hospital, Thripunithura and that Ext.P2 order of transfer was cancelled on the request of the third respondent without wpc:34108 of 2008 2 taking note of the grounds on which the petitioner was transferred to Ernakulam. The petitioner submits that though by Ext.P3, Ext.P2 order was cancelled, she was permitted to attend to her duties in the office of the Deputy Director of Dairy Development, Ernakulam for a period of three months on work arrangement basis. When the said period was about to expire, she moved the Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Dairy Development) Department in Ext.P5 representation dated 6-9- 2008 seeking restoration of Ext.P2. In this writ petition, the petitioner inter alia prays for a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P5 representation and pass orders thereon, within a time limit to be fixex by this Court. 4. When the writ petition came up for admission on 27-11-2008 the learned Government Pleader was directed to ascertain whether the petitioner can be retained at Ernakulam on work arrangement basis till a vacancy arises at Alappuzha. Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits on instructions that posting on work arrangement basis can be only for a period not exceeding three months and that as the said period has expired, the petitioner cannot continue at Ernakulam on work arrangement basis. 5. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner suffers from severe back pain. It was taking note of her medical condition that by Ext.P3 she was permitted to work at Ernakulam on work arrangement basis. The wpc:34108 of 2008 3 petitioner seeks a posting at Ernakulam in order to undergo treatment at Government Ayurveda Hospital, Thripunithura. In view of the stand taken by the respondents, that no one can be permitted to work in a station on work arrangement basis beyond a period of three months, the petitioner cannot continue at Ernakulam. It is for the first respondent to decide whether she should be given a convenient posting either in Ernakulam or in Alleppy as sought by her in Ext.P1. Though Ext.P2 order was initially passed by the Director transferring the petitioner to Ernakulam, it was later cancelled. In these circumstances, I dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Secretary to Government, Agriculture (Dairy Development) Department to consider the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P5 and take a decision thereon after affording her an opportunity of being heard. Final orders on Ext.P5 shall be passed within six weeks from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps