IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 31089 of 2011(I) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- TELSY GEORGE, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER PERIYAR ERECTION DIVISION (LPED), KARIMANAL, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.BIJU MARTIN, SRI.M.M.SALIM. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM),(ELECTRICITY), VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, HEAD QUARTERS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, GENERATION CIRCLE, KOTHAMANGALAM-686 691. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LOWER PERIYAR ERECTION DIVISION, KARIMANAL, THATTEYKANNI P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 602. R1 TO R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.S. ANIL, SC, KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31089/2011 I APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : PHOTO COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD.16.8.2011. EXT.P2 : PHOTO COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DTD.20.9.2011. EXT.P3 : PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.23549/04 DTD.10.8.2004. EXT.P4 : PHOTO COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.12734/04 DTD.7.4.2004. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 31089 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th November, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioner who is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer, Lower Periyar Erection Division, Karimanal under the first respondent has been directed to be transferred and posted to the Electrical Sub Division, Vyttila. Though the order is dated 16-8-2011, the petitioner complains that the order has still not been given effect to. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions for implementing Ext.P1. 2. Adv. K.S.Anil who represents the respondents submits that the petitioner could not be relieved for the reason that a substitute could not be obtained. According to the counsel the same situation continues at present. Therefore, he seeks at least one month's time for relieving the petitioner. 3. Ext.P1 transfer order says that it has been issued on grounds of exigencies of service and public interest. It also provides in Note 2 that the transferees shall be relieved forthwith. Conspicuously, Ext.P1 does not contain any stipulation that the transferees are to be relieved only on finding a substitute. WPC 31089/2011 2 Therefore, there appears to be no justifiable reason for not implementing Ext.P1. However, since the counsel for the respondents assures that the transfer of the petitioner shall be given effect to, as expeditiously as possible, I am of opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of recording the said assurance. 4. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the respondents to implement the transfer of the petitioner ordered as per Ext.P1, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from today. Sd/- K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj P.S.to Judge WPC 31089/2011 3