IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 20TH MAY 2010 / 30TH VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14922 of 2010(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.T.OUSEPH, THIRD GRADE OVERSEER, L.S.G.D. SECTION, ANAKAYAM GRAMA PANCHAYAT, UNDER MALAPPURAM BLOCK PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, L.S.G.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. MUHAMMED MUSTHAFFA P.K., THIRD GRADE OVERSEER, KOTTAKKAL GRAMA PANCHAYAT, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY GP SRI ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).14922/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 20th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner is a Third Grade Overseer on deployment from PWD to LSGD. He was posted at Pookkottur Grama Panchayat from 11.6.1987. It is stated that by Ext.P1, he was relieved and was given charge of Anakkayam Grama Panchayat. Ext.P1 is dated 13.10.2009. By Ext.P2 dated 12.5.2010, he is now transferred and posted to A.R.Nagar Grama Panchayat and the 3rd respondent is posted in his place. The main submission made by the petitioner is that if he is to join at A.R.Nagar, he will have to work under a person who is junior to him. It is also stated that there is no reason to have transferred him within such a short period after Ext.P1. 2. On instructions, the learned Government Pleader submits that Ext.P1 does not reflect the case of transfer but was issued on grouping of Panchayats. It is also stated that the distance between Anakkayam Grama Panchayat and A.R.Nagar Grama Panchayat is only 26 Kms and the 3rd respondent has already joined Anakkayam Grama Panchayat. W.P.(C).14922/2010 2 3. As already seen, the main grievance of the petitioner is that he will have to work under a person who is junior to him, since the petitioner's parent Department is PWD, and the person allegedly junior to him belongs to LSGD. Therefore, there is no junior senior relationship between two. Consequently, this contention has no substance. 4. Be that as it may, it is directed that it will be open to the petitioner to seek redressal of his grievance before the 2nd respondent. Along with I.A.No.6145/2010 petitioner has produced Ext.P3 representation made by him to the 2nd respondent and having regard to his case that this representation is pending, writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P3. This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs