Sunil Kumar M.G vs State Of Kerala

Devan Ramachandran, J

The petitioner says that he has been transferred from Punnapra, Alleppey to Pathanapuram, Kollam by the second respondent, but without considering the fact that he cannot stay away from his home, on account of his grave and debilitating medical conditions, including variations in blood sugar - leading to hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia from time to time - and severe cardiac ailments. He says that if he is transferred to Pathanapuram, his life would be in danger because he requires somebody to be with him throughout the day, on account of the undulations in his diabetic condition.

The petitioner alleges that, however, this has not been considered by the second respondent while Ext.P8 order was issued and that has merely taken note of his ailments during the years 2011 to 2014, without adverting to his present condition, which is far more grave and dangerous. He thus prays that Ext.P14 be set aside and the second respondent be directed to rehear him and take a decision on his request for transfer to a place which is nearer to his home, from where he can travel daily, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

The afore submissions of the petitioner, as voiced by his learned counsel Sri.B.Pramod, were answered by Sri.M.Sasindran - learned standing counsel for respondents 2 and 3, saying that petitioner's transfer cannot be as dictated by him and that this will depend upon the availability of vacancies and posts. He added that the petitioner was transferred to Pathanapuram because his services there has been found to be necessary, because a new lab is being set up.

However, to a pointed question from this Court, Sri.M.Sasindran conceded that the health of the petitioner is is important as the setting up of the lab, but argued that this is a matter which the petitioner must establish through cogent and reliable means, particularly when his medical records brought to the notice of the second respondent related only to the years 2011 to 2015.

I must say that there is some force in the afore submissions of the rival sides because, if the petitioner is really ill, then certainly, he requires lenitude; but otherwise it can only be seen to be a ruse to get over the rigor of a transfer.

Obviously, therefore, this is a question in the realm of facts, which can only be decided by the second respondent appropriately.

That said, I am certain that the petitioner's medical condition must be properly evaluated, including through a medical check up, if so required, before the second respondent takes a final view with respect to the transfer now ordered.

In the afore circumstances, I allow this writ petition and set aside Ext.P8; with a consequential direction to the second respondent to reconsider the matter, after hearing the petitioner and after making all necessary enquiries as he may deem fit; thus culminating in an appropriate order thereon as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Needless to say, to enable an earlier compliance of the afore directions, I direct the petitioner to mark appearance before the second respondent at 11 a.m. on 18.11.2022, on which day, the said Authority will proceed to act in terms of the afore directions.