IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 WP(C).No. 28915 of 2008(P) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- GIRIJA K.K., AGED 51 YEARS, WIFE OF CHANDRASEKHARAN, OVERSEER IIIRD GRADE, BUILDING SECTION EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS.MR.S.R.AJITH M.JOJO GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PWD (ADMINISTRATION) THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD BUILDING SECTION EDAPPALLY,ERNAKULAM. GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO. 28915/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ODER NO.E.B.V14013/08 DT. 4.9.08 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY P. A. TO JUDGE TSS T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.28915/2008-P ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 6th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of transfer Ext.P1 dated 04/09/2008. In the transfer order, it is recorded that she was transferred on the basis of some allegation. No other substitute was also posted. This Court passed an interim order on 07/10/2008 directing the respondents to readmit her to duty at Edapally, if she has been relieved. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that she is still working at Edapally. By Ext.P1 she was transferred from Edapally to Erattupetta in Kottayam District. The petitioner is working only as Overseer Grade-III and she is settled at Ernakulam. It is submitted that there is no complaint against her and therefore, the order of transfer issued on the basis of some complaint is not justified. 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that the petitioner was transferred from Thrissur to Kakkanad on 03/08/2006.. But it is pointed out that the petitioner instead of joining at Kakkanad, she joined at Edapally. That has caused the conduct of an enquiry in the matter. Be that as it may, now that the petitioner is allowed to continue at Edapally and she has completed only two years there, it is upto the second respondent W.P.(C) No.28915/2008 -:2:- to consider the request of the petitioner for retention in Ernakulam itself. It is also submitted that she is due to retire within three years. Therefore, Ext.P1 is set aside. If the petitioner applies for a choice station within Ernakulam itself, the same will be considered and appropriate orders will be passed. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms