IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR SATURDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2011 / 29TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22708 of 2011(K) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ K.V.BINOJI, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.LATE VASUDEVAN, POKKATTU HOUSE, PARAPPU, AYAPPANKOVIL P.O., IDUKKI-685 507, NOW WORKING AS OVERSEER (ELECTRICAL), GENERATION DIVISION, IDAMALAYAR. BY ADV. SRI.BIJU MARTIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDHUTHI BHAVAN, HEAD QUARTERS, PATTOM, TRIVANDRUM-4. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., GENERATION CIRCLE, KOTHAMANGALAM, PIN-686 691. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, K.S.E.B., GENERATION DIVISION, IDAMALAYAR, PIN-686 694. R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.K.S.ANIL,SC,KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.22708/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 25/07/2011. P2 COPY OF THE TRANSFER ORDER DATED 22/07/2011. P3 COPY OF THE RELIVING ORDER ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT 17/08/2011 P4 COPY OF THE ORDER ENDT ON.2/SE(ELE.)/ T& P/2011 DATED., TVPM 22/07/2011. P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 17/08/2011. P6 COPY OF THE TRANSFER REQUEST DATED 23/10/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO.JUDGE sts C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.22708 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated 20th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Overseer (Electrical) in Generation Division, Idamalayar. This writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P2 order whereby the petitioner is transferred from Generation Division, Idamalayar to Lower Periyar Erection Division, Karimanal. The petitioner assails the said order on various grounds. The petitioner relies on note 4 under Ext.P4. It reads thus:- “4. While reposting the incumbents the concerned officers should ensure that employees having five years or more service in a station shall be shuffled and posted in another station within the circle. In any case they shall not be posted outside 40 kms. radius.” Relying on the said note it is contended that persons like the petitioner could not be posted outside 40 kms. radius. It is contended that as per the impugned order the petitioner was posted to a place which situates more than 40 kms., precisely 55 kms. away and, therefore, it violates Ext.P4. Yet another contention is that even prior to the issuance of Ext.P2 he had submitted Ext.P1 representation before the third respondent. However, that was not taken into account while passing Ext.P2 order of transfer. In short, the contention of the petitioner is WP(C).No.22708/2011 2 that the directions of the second respondent in Ext.P4 have been ignored by the third respondent while transferring the petitioner as per Ext.P2 order. I am of the view that since the petitioner relies on Ext.P4 it will only be appropriate for the petitioner to move the second respondent raising his grievances against Ext.P2 order. The petitioner may file a representation raising his claims, contentions as also grievances against Ext.P2 before the second respondent within a period of 10 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner files such a representation within the above stipulated time, the same shall be considered by the second respondent and appropriate orders shall be passed thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of such representation. Needless to say that any person/persons likely to be affected shall also be put on notice. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS