IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 18TH MARCH 2008 / 28TH PHALGUNA 1929 WP(C).No. 3240 of 2008(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ RAJAN PANATHARA , SENIOR ASSISTANT MANAGER, STATE WARE HOUSE, PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH RESPONDENT: ------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA WARE HOUSING CORPORATION ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.MAJNU KOMATH, SC, K.S.W.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 3240 of 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRANSFER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2- TRUE COPY OF MEMO DATED 12.12.2007 ISSUED BY THE ZONAL MANAGER EXT.P3- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED EXPLANATION TO THE SAID MEMO ON 14.12.07 EXT.P4- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS REGARDING CALLS MADE BY THE PETITION FROM HIS SELF-PHONE TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICERS ON THE DATE OF INCIDENT EXT.P5- TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 8.1.08 EXT.P6- TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILED EXPLANATION TO EXT.P5 MEMO ON 14.1.08 EXT.P7- TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE HOSPITAL SHOWING THE BRIEF SUMMARY OF PETITIONER'S ILLNESS. (TRUE COPY) P.A TO JUDGE V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).3240/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 18th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a Senior Assistant Manager in the State Ware Housing Corporation, is aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer, by which he is transferred from Payyannur in Kannur District to Nattika in Thrissur District. 2. According to the petitioner, on promotion as Senior Assistant Manager, he was transferred to Iritty on 19.6.2006. Thereafter, he was transferred to Payyannur with effect from 5.3.2007. Now he is transferred from Payyannur to Nattika in Thrissur District. Petitioner has challenged the order of transfer inter alia on the ground that he is due to retire on 31.7.2008. He is residing at Neeleswaram in Kasargod District and he is required to look after his aged mother who is more than 90 years old. Transfer seems to be the offshoot of an enquiry which emanates from Ext.P2. Petitioner himself is a chronic patient suffering from Thyroid. Transfer will only W.P.(C).3240/2008 2 increase his hardship. Due to orders of stay on the petitioner’s transfer, he is continuing at Payyannur. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. There is no irregularity in the order of transfer and the fact is that the petitioner, according to him, is due to retire on 31.7.2008. Enquiry which is being conducted and the allegations contained in Ext.P2 is a matter which has to be seriously looked into. 4. Reference is made to the fact that the Corporation has taken a decision enhancing the retirement age of its employees to 58. This decision requires the approval of the Government. Government declined approval and some employees approached this Court and Writ Petitions were allowed. Government has filed a Writ Appeal which is pending. No person is being required to retire at the age of 55. Reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. 5. I heard learned counsel on both sides. W.P.(C).3240/2008 3 6. The grounds for interference with the order of transfer are extremely limited. I am not able to discern any specific focussed allegations of malafides as such, in relation to the order of transfer. Transfer is not regulated by any Statutory provisions. Therefore, the transfer cannot be interfered with, on the ground of Statutory infraction. Petitioner is approaching the age of 55, which could be the age of superannuation. 7. The reasons given by the Corporation in the counter affidavit, for transferring the petitioner out of Payyannur namely to facilitate proper enquiry, cannot be said to be perverse or otherwise arbitrary. It is a valid reason. 8. Taking note of all these factors and also the reason put forward by the petitioner that he has to look after his 90 year old mother, writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- W.P.(C).3240/2008 4 (i). If the age of retirement of the employees of the Corporation is enhanced beyond the age of 55 or the petitioner continues in service beyond 31.7.2008, Corporation would be entitled to enforce Ext.P1. Of course, it is open to the Corporation in such circumstances, to post the petitioner in a place other than Nattika also. Such decision should be taken on fair and reasonable grounds. (ii). Corporation may consider a place of posting to the petitioner nearer to his place of residence in Neeleswaram in Kasargode District. This is only in the light of the stand taken by the petitioner, ie, he is required to look after his aged mother and also that he himself is a chronic Thyroid patient. Corporation may take a decision in this regard within a period of two weeks from today and there upon, it will be open to the Corporation to transfer the petitioner outside Payyannur. (iii). Till the Corporation takes such a decision, he shall be permitted to W.P.(C).3240/2008 5 continue there and thereafter, his posting will be subject to the decision to be taken by the Corporation. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs