IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2008 / 5TH BHADRA 1930 RP.No. 781 of 2008(G) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.18126/2008 Dated 23/06/2008 .................... PETITIONER/3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC. -------------------------------------------------- THRESSIAMMA C.K., THACHERIL HOUSE, IRAVIMANGALAM P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE J.MATHAIKAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 &2 IN WPC --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KADUTHURUTHY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KADUTHURUTHY REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, 2. THE DISTRICT OFFICER, THE DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI.C.M. KAMMAPPU SC SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE NARAGAMPARAMBIL THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- R.P.781/2008 in W.P.(C).18126/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 27th day of August, 2008 ORDER I heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Kaduthuruthy Gramapanchayath. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the review petitioner had not expressed any consent to join at Anganvadi No.161. As a matter of fact, the submission so referred to in paragraph 2 of Annexure-A2 judgment can only be the submission by the learned Government Pleader. It is further submitted that orders are yet to be passed on Ext.P4 referred to in Annexure-A2 judgment. If that be so, such orders may be passed after hearing the review petitioner also. As I have already made it clear, this Court had never intended to regulate the transfer of Anganvadi workers and it is open to the competent authority to do so. All that this Court had intended to convey was that in effecting the transfer of low paid employees, steps must be taken to see that R.P.781/2008 2 any hardship caused to them by reason of the transfer is minimized as far as possible. This is all what I meant even at the time of disposing of the earlier writ petition No.15940/2008, when it was observed that if the purpose of the transfer of the review petitioner and Smt.Anitha kumari was to discipline both the workers, then it could have been achieved by posting them in a nearby station. I note that at every stage, there seems to be a lapse on the part of the authority, in not reading the judgment correctly. Be that as it may, since orders are yet to be passed on Ext.P4 referred to in Annexure A2 judgment, same shall be done after hearing all the affected parties. In passing orders as above, Ext.P3 referred to in Writ Petition No.15940/2008 shall also be looked into. Review Petition is disposed of as above. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs