IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST DECEMBER 2009 / 30TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34097 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANSAR HUSSAIN, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O.SHAHUL HAMEED RAWTHER, WORKING AS TRADE INSTRUCTOR, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM. 2. SHINE.S., AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SOMAN.K., WORKING AS SCREEN PRINTER, SUB CENTRE, KOLLAM. BY ADV. MR.P.CHANDRASEKHAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, HEAD OFFICE COMPLEX, VATTIYOORKAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, GOVERNING BODY, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, THE OFFICE OF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY MR.K.ANAND, S.C. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.34097 of 2009-F - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of December, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders Exts.P1 and P2 by which, the first petitioner is transferred from Sub Centre, Kollam to Sub Centre, Kozhikode and the second petitioner is transferred from Sub Centre, Kollam to Sub Centre, Kannur. Mainly, it is contended that transfer is ordered due to malafide reasons. The orders were passed immediately after the disciplinary proceedings against them culminated in awarding extreme punishment by way of placing them in the lower rank in the basic pay of Rs.2610/- in the scale of pay of Rs.2610-3680, as per Exts.P7 and P8 orders dated 5.10.2009. They have challenged the same in appeal before the appellate authority, viz. under Chapter 8.6 of the Kerala State Audio Visual and Reprographic Centre Rules on Service Conditions of Employees and Allied Matters, as per Ext.P9. It is pointed out that the first respondent has personal vengeance against the petitioners since they belong to a union which has raised slogans against the present Managing Director at the time of taking charge in the Head Office. 2. It is mainly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners wpc 34097/2009 2 that the present transfer is also by way of punishment and as the petitioners are low paid employees, they will not be able to survive with the meager salary, in the light of the punishment already imposed against them. 3. The first respondent has filed a counter affidavit and the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit also. The first respondent has pointed out that the transfer is in exigencies of service, as personnel are required in Kannur and Kozhikode and the allegations of malafides also have been denied. The allegation of personal vengeance has also been denied by the first respondent in the counter affidavit. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners Shri P. Chandrasekhar and Shri K. Anand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the orders have been passed illegally and arbitrarily with a further direction to relieve them from 18.11.2009 itself, going by Exts.P1 and P2 and the petitioners have been performing their duties well. It is submitted that the punishment itself is meted out in a harsh manner and the petitioners will be getting monthly salary only at the rate of Rs.3,292/- and Rs.3,152/- respectively, after the punishment is imposed. It is therefore submitted that pending the appeal, the petitioners are sought to be punished again by the Managing Director, by transferring them to northern Districts. they will not be able to wpc 34097/2009 3 meet the needs of the family from out of this amount. 5. Shri K. Anand, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that in Kozhikode and Kannur Centres, personnel are required and the petitioners are experienced persons also. Therein, sufficient work is there, compared to Kollam Centre and therefore transfer is purely in the exigencies of service. It is pointed out that the petitioners will be getting Rs.7,334/- even if the punishment is imposed and actually they are entitled for the benefits of pay revision also. 6. Therefore, it requires adjudication on the disputed questions of fact. The petitioners have got an effective remedy of approaching the governing body in the matter by filing an appeal. Since such a remedy is available, I am of the view that the contentious issues need not be gone into in detail at this stage. By interim order dated 26.11.2009, this Court ordered that the petitioners will not be disengaged which was modified by order dated 30.11.2009 to the effect that status-quo as on that day as regards the petitioners will continue, which interim order is being extended from time to time. Learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent submitted that the petitioners have already been relieved, which fact is disputed by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners 7. Therefore, it is up to the petitioners to file an appeal against wpc 34097/2009 4 Exts.P1 and P2 before the Appellate Authority and seek appropriate interim orders in the matter. If an appeal is filed within a period of two weeks from today, the same will be entertained by the Appellate Authority and the matter will be considered on merits, within a further period of two months from the date of receipt of the appeal. To enable the petitioners to file the appeal and to move for appropriate interim orders, status-quo as on today as regards the petitioners, will continue for a period of three weeks from today. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/