IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 19582 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- 1. SIVAKALA T., TYPIST/CLERK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJAMMA P.M., TYPIST/CLERK, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SASIKUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, HEAD OFFICE, KANNUR. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KANNUR. 3. REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R1TO3 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R1TO3 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R1TO3 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R1TO3 SRI.ALBERT VARGHESE FOR R1TO3 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R1TO3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J. --------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 19582 OF 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T The first petitioner is working as a Lower Division Typist in the first respondent Corporation and she has been continuing in the Thiruvananthapuram office since 1996. The second petitioner is also a Lower Division Typist who has been continuing in the Ernakulam office since 1995. They have been mutually transferred as per Ext.P1 order, which has been challenged in this writ petition. 2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it is contended that the transfer is on account of administrative exigencies. A reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioners. 3. Transfers of employees of the first respondent is not regulated by any statutory provision. Therefore an inference of any statutory infraction cannot be drawn. Specific allegations of mala fides qua the competent authority of the first respondent have also not been made. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the administrative exigencies of the organisation would be met by retaining the petitioners where they are. He further submits that the first petitioner suffers from arthritis on both knees and at the age of 48 her transfer to W.P.(C) No. 19582/09 2 Ernakulam will put her to considerable difficulties. Difficulties are mentioned in this writ petition by the second petitioner also. 5. Going by the limited grounds of inference that are otherwise available qua an order of transfer in so far as this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is concerned, I do not find any grounds to interfere with Ext.P2. But if the petitioners make individual representations before the Managing Director of the first respondent, their grievances shall be considered and, if possible, such grievances shall be redressed also by the first respondent. A decision on the request made by the petitioners shall be taken positively within one month from the date of receipt of their request along with a copy of this judgment. Subject to the above, the writ petition is disposed of. The interim order passed by this Court will continue till the Managing Director of the first respondent takes a decision as aforesaid. V.GIRI, JUDGE vps W.P.(C) No. 19582/09 3