IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 27TH AUGUST 2009 / 5TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 24200 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.343/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER-TELECOM, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM BSNL, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHIPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. THE ASST. GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) O/O THE PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, ERNAKULAM TELEPHONES, BSNL BHAVAN, KALATHILPARAMBIL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.T.RAMPRASAD UNNI SMT.SMITHA GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ERNAKULAM BENCH, REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. K.K.P.ATTAKKIDAVU, AGED 56 YARS, S/O. LAGE IBRAHIMKUTTY KATTIKULAM, SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, CTL, BSNL, KAVARATTI, RESIDING AT KEELAKOCHITHITHIYAPURA, KAVARATTI, UT OF LAKSHADWEEP. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24200 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 27th August, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Petitioners are the respondents before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A.343/09. The application was filed aggrieved by order dated 5.5.2009, whereby the petitioner was transferred from Kavaratti to Aluva. It is seen that the petitioner had represented his grievances before the Chief General Manager as per representation dated 22.5.2009. Without even waiting to know the action taken on the representation it appears, the second respondent rushed to the Tribunal and the Tribunal has interfered with the order. Learned counsel for the applicant however submits that only because the applicant apprehended implementation of the order, he filed an application before the Tribunal. Be that as it may, since in normal matters of administration, an employee who had a grievance with regard to his transfer had a legitimate right to approach his superior officer with a representation and the same having been duly done, it is only appropriate that the superior authority looks into the matter. In that view of the matter, we set aside Ext.P4 order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam. WANO.24200/09 2 There will be a direction to the first appellant to consider the representation dated 22.5.2009 referred to above and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law. As far as the original applicant (second respondent herein) is concerned, the transfer order will be deferred till such time. It is made clear that it will be open to the second respondent herein to submit a supplementary representation. In case the second respondent requests for an opportunity for hearing, the first appellant shall consider that request also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The writ petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.24200 of 2009 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 27th August, 2009.