IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1626 of 2010(C) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- S.RAJAN, BINDER, WORKING AS PAY WARD ASSISTANT, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHR WS), COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.RAJESH SMT.A.K.PREETHA SRI.K.M.ALEXANDER RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH DEPARTMENT & VICE CHAIRMAN, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KHRWS, KOZHIKODE. 5. SMT.USHA TITUS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. R.LEELA, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 8. P.SREEDHARAN NAIR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN CHARGE, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 9. M.S.MANOJ KUMAR, HELPER, IPP PRESS, KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH AND WELFARE SOCIETY (KHRWS), GENERAL HOSPITAL CAMPUS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 10. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, KHRWS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.M.AJAY,SC,KERALA HEALTH RESEARCH&WE FOR R2,3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------- WP(C) NO.1626 OF 2010 ------------------------------ Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Binder the in Indian Population Projects Press (IPP Press) under the second respondent. According to the petitioner, he had submitted complaints against the practice of engaging employees on daily wages. He has particularly complained against the engagement of the 6th respondent on daily wages. His case is that in retaliation, the 6th respondent has submitted a complaint of sexual harassment at work place against him. The petitioner was there upon suspended from service and an enquiry was conducted into the allegation against him by a committee constituted in accordance with the directions contained in Vysakha Vs. State of Rajasthan (1997 (6) SCC 241). The committee has found that the complaint against the petitioner was well founded and has recommended action against him in accordance with law. 2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner has been reinstated in service upon the revocation of his order of suspension. However, WP(C) NO.1626/2010 2 on the basis of Ext.P19 proceedings of the Secretary to Government, the petitioner has been transferred and posted to Kozhikode by Ext.P18. According to the petitioner, the order Ext.P19 not only related to himself, but also to another employee, Smt. Laly Mathew. She approached this court by filing a writ petition challenging her transfer and by Ext.P20 interim order, this court has directed the maintenance of status quo as on the date of the order. It is the case of the petitioner that he has already joined duty at Kozhikode. However, he has submitted Ext.P23 representation before the third respondent requesting for a transfer back to Thiruvananthapuram. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the third respondent would not consider Ext.P23 in an impartial manner for the reason that Ext.P19 proceedings of the Government has directed transfer of the petitioner out of Thiruvananthapuram district. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the result of Ext.P23 is a foregone conclusion. 3. I have heard Mr. M.R.Rajesh counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajay, counsel for the second and third respondents. I have also considered the contentions of the rival parties. WP(C) NO.1626/2010 3 4. I notice that, this court has directed the maintenance of status quo in respect of Ext.P19 order which directs transfer of the petitioner out of Thiruvananthapuram district. Therefore the said proceedings cannot stand in the way of Ext.P23 being considered independently. In view of the above, the third respondent can be directed to consider Ext.P23 representation uninfluenced by the direction contained in Ext.P19. In the result, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P23 representation and to pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. K. SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE. sou.