IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 11TH JANUARY 2010 / 21TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 109 of 2010(K) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- PRABHA, AGED 37 YEARS, D/O. LATE GOPALAN, VAKAVELI HOUSE, PUTTADI, VANDANMEDU, IDUKKI DISTRICT, WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS DIVISION, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT (ADMINISTRATION), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS DIVISION, IDUKKI. 3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BUILDINGS SUB DIVISION, NEDUMKANDAM, IDUKKI. BY GOVT.PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.109 of 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner challenges Ext.P3 proceedings of the first respondent by which she has been transferred from Idukki to Nedumkandom. The reason stated for the transfer is Administrative convenience. According to the petitioner, she is a physically handicapped person and her disability has been assessed at 45% (moderate) as per Ext.P1 issued by the Medical Board. She has also been allotted quarters at Painavu as per Ext.P2 proceedings. The complaint of the petitioner is that the place to which she is transferred is 45 kms. away with no facility for quarters and that being a physically disabled person, she is not in a position to travel daily to the said place and to discharge her duties. Therefore, she prays for setting aside the order of transfer. 2. The Government Pleader has on instructions WPC 109/2010 2 submitted that the transfer was only for administrative reasons and not by way of punishment. There is nothing on record to show that the transfer is vitiated by any extraneous consideration. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of transfer. 3. The personal disability of the petitioner is certainly an aspect, which requires sympathetic consideration. I do not think that the first respondent would be insensitive to the inconvenience that would be caused to the petitioner, if she is transferred to an inaccessible place, considering her physical disability. In the event of the petitioner making a proper representation to the first respondent, the first respondent shall consider the grievances of the petitioner and pass orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is permitted to submit such a representation within a period of one week from today. If such a WPC 109/2010 3 representation is made, the first respondent shall consider and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month thereafter. The first respondent shall also be free to decide whether to retain the petitioner in her present post till a final decision is taken on her representation in accordance with the above direction. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/