IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2011 / 31ST BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 12590 of 2011(W) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- RAJI.C.T., DAUGHTER OF THANKAPPAN, AGED 34, EMPLOYED AS JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, CORPORATION OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, CORPORATION OFFICE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.39, ALAPPATT NAGAR, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA SRI.M.S.KALESH SMT.A.V.PRIYA SRI.HARISH GOPINATH SRI.V.VINAY MENON SMT.KVP.JAYALEKSHMY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF URBAN AFFAIRS, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.12590/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN OP(FC) 368/2010 DTD. 1.11.2010 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P2:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN IA.672/2011 DTD. 25.2.2011 IN OP(DIVORCE)1008/2008 OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P3:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD 26.2.2011 ISSUED BY THE JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS. P4:- COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER DTD. 1.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P5:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL ON 27.1.2011 BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE ADVANCE APPLCIATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BERFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT DTD. 27.1.2011. P7:- COPY OF THE IA.728/2011 IN OP. 1008/2008. P8:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 1.3.2011 IN IA.728/2011 IN OP.1008/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. P9:- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 1.3.2011 ISSUED BY THE JDUGE, FAMILY COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE DIRECTOR , URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.12590 of 2011 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Junior Health Inspector in the Corporation of Thiruvananthapuram. She had some disputes with her husband. The disputes were the subject matter of O.P.(Divorce)No.1008/2008, O.P.No.43/2008, O.P.No.1030/2008 and O.P.(FC) No.368/2010. On the intervention of the Family Court, the disputes between the petitioner and her husband were all settled and the pending cases were all compromised. As per the terms of the compromise, the petitioner and her family were to shift their residence from Thiruvanathapuram to Ernakulam. 2. Accordingly, the petitioner's husband who is working in the Education Department sought a transfer to Ernakulam. It was granted. Her children were also taken from Thiruvananthapuram and were admitted to schools in Ernakulam. Though the petitioner had also submitted a request for transfer to Ernakulam, her complaint is that no WPC No.12590 of 2011 2 orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, it was a part of the settlement, that was worked out among the parties, that the petitioner and her family had to shift their residence to Ernakulam. The effort of the Family Court to effect a reunion of the family is reflected in Exts.P8 and P9 whereby, the Court has also recommended that the petitioner's case be considered sympathetically. 4. The learned Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the petitioner is part of the Municipal Common Service to which she was appointed only in the year 2008. As per the rules applicable, she is entitled to be considered for an inter-district transfer only after she completes five years of service. It is for the said reason that the request was not considered. 5. In the present case, the facts are certainly peculiar and this is a case where the petitioner and her husband have been able to effect a reunion, burying all their differences, on the specific condition that they shift their residence to Ernakulam. The husband and the children have already left Thiruvananthapuram and shifted to Ernakulam. In the above scenario, the case of the WPC No.12590 of 2011 3 petitioner certainly requires consideration on the merits with a compassionate mind, the policy of law being primarily, to protect and maintain family unity and stability. In view of the above, the request of the petitioner evidenced herein by Ext.P5 would certainly have to be considered, adverting to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and a decision would have to be taken thereon without further delay. 6. This writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Ext.P5 request for transfer submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, 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 giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/