IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2011 / 16TH ASHADHA 1933 OP (CAT).No. 2156 of 2011(Z) ---------------------------- OA.308/2010 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER ------------- D.RAJAN, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DOORDHARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, PRASAR BHARATHI CORPORATION, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN), DIRECTORATE GENERAL, DOORDARSHAN, DOORDARSHAN BHAVAN, NEW DELHI-110 001. 4. T.N.LATHAMONY, PRODUCTION ASSISTANT, DOORDARSHAN KENDRA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PIN-695 001. ADV. SRI. S. SUJIN, S.C. FOR DOORDARSHAN KENDRA. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 24.6.2011 IN O.A. NO. 308/2010 OF THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 308/2010 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE HON'BLE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. knc/- C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S. GOPINATHAN, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P. (CAT) NO. 2156 OF 2011 = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. J U D G M E N T C.N. Ramachandran Nair, J. Challenge is against the order of the C.A.T. declining petitioner's request to interfere with his transfer from Thiruvananthapuram to Kozhikode. Petitioner's case is that 4th respondent is allowed to continue in Thiruvananthapuram, though she was once transferred in 2006. What we notice from the records is that while the 4th respondent has her husband living outside India and child studying in college, petitioner's case is he has an old mother to look after. Considering the relative difficulties of both the parties, the Department found the 4th respondent has a better claim to be retained in Thiruvananthapuram. It seems that the Women Empowerment Committee has also recommended retaining of the 4th respondent. We therefore, do not find any merit in the original petition. Consequently, the original petition is dismissed. C.N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, (JUDGE). P.S. GOPINATHAN, (JUDGE) knc/-