IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 11720 of 2010(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.KRISHNAN, SENIOR AUDITOR, MALABAR REGIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION (IN SHORT MRCMPU)LTD, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITIES, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DEPUTY REGISTRAR/CONCURRENT AUDITOR, KERALA CO-OEPRATIVE MILK MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. TRIVANDRUM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 11720 of 2010 L ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T This writ petition has been filed assailing Ext.P3 order of transfer. According to the petitioner, he is a person orthopedically handicapped to the extent of 65% disability. Ext.P1 is the certificate revealing the same. As per Ext.P3, the petitioner, who is presently working in the Malabar Regional Co-operative Milk Producers Union, Palakkad, has been ordered to be transferred and posted at Kannur. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was ordered to be transferred and posted at Kannur without taking into account the fact that he is a person orthopedically handicapped to the extent of 65% disability. According to the petitioner, several of his seniors were continuing in the same station for more than ten years. It was ignoring the aforesaid aspects that Ext.P3 order has been issued. 2. Considering the contentions of the petitioner that he is an orthopedically handicapped person having 65% disability and several persons, who are senior to him, have been working for the past ten years in the Malabar Region, I think the request of the WPC.11720/2010 : 2 : petitioner for retention in Palakkad district deserves to be considered sympathetically. Therefore, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the 1st respondent by filing a representation raising his claims and contentions against Ext.P3. He may also point out the available vacancies in Palakkad district. In case such a representation is received by the 1st respondent within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the 1st respondent shall consider and pass orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the representation. Needless to say that while passing orders in terms of the above directions, the 1st respondent shall bear in mind the fact that the petitioner is an orthopedically handicapped person having 65% disability. In case the petitioner is not already relieved pursuant to Ext.P3 order, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in the present station till such a decision is taken by the 1st respondent. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks