IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 8TH AUGUST 2011 / 17TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21566 of 2011(U) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- JAYAKUMAR V., LOWER DIVISION CLERK (HIGHER GRADE), OFFICE OF THE ICDS, ARYAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN, SRI.SHERRY J. THOMAS. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. ANITHA M.T., LOWER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE ICDS, THYKATTUSSERI, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT - 688 528. R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. L.G.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.21566/2011 U APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE OPTION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH THE COVERING LETTER FORWARDING. P2: COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DTD. 23/04/2010. P3: COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD. 02/08/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.21566 OF 2011 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Lower Division Clerk (Higher Grade) attached to the office of the ICDS Aryad in Alappuzha District. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 order whereby the petitioner was transferred and posted to ICDS, Thykattussery. Various contentions have been raised by the petitioner to assail Ext.P3. The petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community. He joined the present station on 23.1.2009. The third respondent was directly recruited as L.D.C in the Social Welfare Department. She was posted at ICDS, Thykkattussery as per Ext.P2. A perusal of Ext.P3 would reveal that virtually, as regards the petitioner and the third respondent, it is a mutual transfer. In Ext.P3, it is stated that transfers are being effected on request or on administrative grounds or on public interest. The administrative reason for the transfer of the petitioner and the third respondent is not discernible from Ext.P3. The further contention of the petitioner is that if Ext.P3 order is implemented, he would have to travel 160 kilometers per day. There is none at home to attend his children aged 6 and 1 and his ailing mother who is aged 92 years. I am of the view that these are matters W.P.(C) NO.21566 of 2011 2 to be considered by the competent authority. The contention of the petitioner is that in the light of relevant government orders, he is entitled to get preference in the matter of transfer and all those matters were not all taken into consideration by the respondents while effecting transfer as per Ext.P3. Ext.P3 would reveal that it is an order passed by the Head of the Department. Going by the transfer norms, persons having any grievance against order of transfer passed by the Head of the Department can move the Government. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate petition before the second respondent raising all his grievances against Ext.P3 as also the claims. The petitioner may do so within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner prefers such a petition within the above stipulated time, the second respondent shall consider the same looking into relevant government orders and pass appropriate orders thereon with notice to the third respondent as well. In case the petitioner and the third respondent have not already relieved, they shall be permitted to continue at their respective stations till an order is passed and communicated to the petitioner. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.21566 of 2011 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. JUDGMENT September, 2010 W.P.(C) NO.21566 of 2011 4