AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 269 wordsMurali Purushothaman, J
The petitioner is working as unskilled Worker in the head office of the 1st respondent Society at Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, he has completed 26 years of service and he is due to retire on May 2025 and is a native of Thiruvananthapuram District. By Ext.P1 order dated 14.08.2024, he was transferred to Kannur. According to the petitioner, there is no exigency of service in transferring him to Kannur. The petitioner states that transferring him to Kannur which is more than 250kms. away from where he is presently working and when he has only 9 months to retire from service is illegal and arbitrary. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 order of transfer, he preferred Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The learned Standing Counsel, on instructions, submits that, the petitioner has already been relieved from the post pursuant to Ext.P1 order.
Since it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Ext.P1 order of transfer, transferring him from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur has been issued in violation of the transfer norms, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If no other person has been posted at the place from where the petitioner has been relieved, the petitioner shall be permitted to continue there till orders are passed on Ext.P4 representation.
The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.