In the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam - WP(C) No. 37607 of 2023 & Conn. and connected cases

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 37607 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1BRIJESHA.M, AGED43YEARS S/O.MUKUNDAN,CONDUCTORSELECTIONGRADE,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGAT AMMBRATHODIYILHOUSE,EDATHNATTUKARA,PALAKKADDISTRICT, – PIN678601. 2SOORAJ, AGED43YEARS S/O.RAMACHANDRAN,C.K,CONDUCTORGRADE,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATSARITHA – NIVAS,THADUKKASSERY,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678641. 3SIJU.V, AGED44YEARS S/O.AMBIKAAMMA,CONDUCTORGRADE-I,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKAD,RESIDINGATTHOTTASSERI – HOUSE,KALLDIKODE,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678596. 4RAJESH,P, AGED43YEARS S/O.RAMAN,CONDUCTORGRADE-I,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATPANAMPOOZHIHOUSE, EDATHANATTUKARA,P.O.ALANALLUR(VIA),PALAKKADDISTRICT, – PIN678601. 5JAYAN.A, AGED44YEARS S/O.PADMANABHANNAIR,DRIVERGRADE,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,AMBAZHAKODEHOUSE, – THRIKKALLOOR,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678601. 6NASARO, AGED43YEARS S/O.MOHAMMED,CONDUCTORGRADE-I,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKAD,RESIDINGATONGALLOOR HOUSE,KOTTAPADAM,P.O.MANNARKKAD,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN - 678583 7ABDUNAZARP, AGED41YEARS S/O.MOIDUTTY,DRIVERSELECTIONGRADE,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGAT PANGINIKKADANHOUSE,THATHEGALAM,KAITHACHIRA,P.O. – PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678582. ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` 8DILEEPKUMARG, AGED41YEARS S/OLATECCGOPI,278/7IYYANIHOUSE,ANJUMOORTHYMNAGLAAM – PO,ANNAKKARAPALAKKAD,,PIN678682. 9RAVUNNI,P, AGED48YEARS S/O.MANU,DRIVERGRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATPULIKKAPADAMHOUSE, – THENKARA,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678582. 10SATHYANARAYANAN,K.V. AGED42YEARS S/O.NARAYANANNAIR,CONDUCTORGRADE,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGAT KILINGAYATHILHOUSE,JELLIPPARA,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT, – PIN678581. 11B.K.BYJU, AGED43YEARS S/O.KUMARAN,CONDUCTOR,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATBIJUNIVAS, KANHIRAPUZHA,P.O,MANNARKKAD,PALAKKADDISTRICT, – PIN678591. 12NANDAKUMARP, AGED43YEARS S/O.UNNIKRISHNANNAIR,DRIVERGRADE-IKERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATKATTAYIL HOUSE,KATTAPURAM,P.O.SREEKRISHNAPURAM(VIA),PALAKKAD – DISTRICT,PIN679513. 13UNNIKRISHNANK.C, AGED45YEARS S/O.CHAMIYAR,DRIVERGRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATKANAKUPARAMBU – HOUSE,MUNDUR,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678592. 1414.RAVICHANDRAN,K, AGED41YEARS S/O.RAMANKUTTYNAIR,DRIVERGRADE-IKERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATKUNCHARATH – HOUSE,THEKARA,P.O.MANNARKKAD,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN 678582. 15VENU, AGED53YEARS ``` ``` 3 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` S/O.KESAVANANAIR,CONDUCTORGRADE-I,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATKIZHUVEETTIL – HOUSE,POONCHOLA,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678598. 16TOMYSEBASTIAN AGED41YEARS S/OSEBASTIAN,PM,CONDUCTOR,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,PERUMPUZHAGILHOUSE, IRUMPUZACHOOLAPO,VTCPALAKAYAM,PALAKKADDISTRICT, – PIN678591. 17MA.PRAVEENKUMAR, AGED41YEARS CONDUCTOR,GRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, MANNARKKAD,S/OMSARUMGAN, – MADANASERI,ANGADI(H),PULAPATTA,(PO),MANNARKAD,PIN 678682. 18P.K.DEVADASAN, AGED44YEARS S/O.KUMARAN,DRIVERGRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATNADUKALATHILHOUSE, - CHERYPOSTKONGAD,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678631 19JAYAKUMAR.S AGED41YEARS CONDUCTOR,GRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, MANNARKKAD,S/OSUKUMARANC.K,CHERUVILHOUSE,POONCHOOLA – PO,POTTASSERY,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678598. 20ASSAINARMC AGED41YEARS CONDUCTOR,GRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, MANNARKKAD,S/OMOHAMMEDMC,MALACHIRAHOUSE, – VIYYAKURUSSI(PO),PIN678593. 21SREEJITH.K.S. AGED47YEARS S/O.V.SHIVASANKARAN,AGED47YEARS,CONDUCTORGRADE-I KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD,RESIDING ATKAMBALAMKODUHOUSE,NADUVATHUPURA,P.O.PALAKKAD – DISTRICT,PIN678574. 22THARANADH.K.K. AGED44YEARS S/O.K.C.KUNNAN,CONDUCTORGRADE-IKERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD,RESIDINGATSHANTHIRAIL – NAGAR,OLAVAKODU,PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678002. ``` ``` 4 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` 23TOMSINGH.T.K, AGED51YEARS S/O.CHACKO,CONDUCTORGRADE-IKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,PALAKKAD,RESIDINGATTHADIYOODUPARAHOUSE, – MUNDAMPARA,KALARA,P.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678581. 24S.VINODKUMAR, AGED44YEARS S/O.RAGHAVANNAIR,CONDUCTORGRADE-IKERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,MANNARKKAD,RESIDINGATVINOD – BHAVAN,EZHAKKADP.O.PALAKKADDISTRICT,PIN678631. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 33.THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 4THEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER, – KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD,PIN 678001. 5THESUPERINTENDENT, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD, – PIN678001. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SCFORKSRTC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37622/2023,38612/2023ANDCONNECTED CASES,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 5 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV FRIDAY,THE22[ND]DAYOFDECEMBER2023/1STPOUSHA,1945 WP(C)NO.37622OF2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANTONYVSEBASTIAN, AGED41YEARS DRIVERGRADE2,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, NORTHPARURDEPOT,S/OSEBASTIAN,VELLARAPILLY, THIRITHIPURAM,MOOTHAKNNAMPO,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT, – PIN683516. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2CHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONTRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONTRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 4THEASSISTANTTRANSPORTOFFICER, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,NORTHPARVOOR – DEPOT,NORTHPARAVOOR,ERNAKULAM,PIN683516. SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 6 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 38612 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1RAJEEVR, AGED42YEARS S/O.RAGHAVAPAI,CONDUCTORGRADE.1,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,POOMANGALATH, – THURAVOORPOST,CHERTHALA,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN 688532. 2NYSHADNS, AGED46YEARS S/O.CRSHANMUGHAN,CONDUCTOR,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATIONDEPOTERNAKULAM,NYSHALAYAM,IRUMPANAMP – O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN682309. 3INDRADASVA, AGED51YEARS S/O.ACHUKKUTTYVA,CONDUCTOR,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAMVACHAKALHOUSE, – NAYARAMBALAMPO,,PIN682509. 4ALAND'CRUZ, AGED49YEARS S/O.ALBERTD'CRUZ,DRIVERGRADE.1,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,ARACKALHOUSE – KANNAMALIP.O,CHERIYAKADAVU,PIN682008. 5RAJESHVA, AGED42YEARS S/O.ANANTHAN,DRIVER,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAMVAREEKADUHOUSE,AROORPO, – PIN688534. 6AJO.T.MANI, AGED42YEARS S/OMANIT.K,DRIVER,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPOT CORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,THEKKELHOUSE,PAZHAMTHOTTAM – P.O,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN683565. 7TVVINOD, AGED48YEARS ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` S/OTAVIJAYAN,DRIVER,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,THOPPUMPARAMBIL, – 21/2841,NELSONMANDELAROAD,PALLURUTHY,PIN682006. 8SOMASUNDARANR, AGED45YEARS S/ORAVEENDRANAACHARI,DRIVERKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,CHIRAYILHOUSE,BOATJETTY, – JANAKIYAROAD,VADUTHALAPO.KOCHI,PIN682023. 9A.D.DILEEPKUMAR, AGED52YEARS S/OAKDASAN,DRIVER,KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORT CORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,MAROTTICKALHOLUSE, – PALLURUTHY,KOCHI,PIN682006. 10AMBILY.N AGED41YEARS D/OVJNARAYANAPILLAI,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATE ROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,PADAVARA – HOUSE,MARKETROAD,THRIPUNITHURA,PIN682301. 11JYOTHILAKSHMIL, AGED44YEARS KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM, D/OGOPALAKRISHNAPANICKER,CONDUCTORGRADEIARCHANA – HOUSE,KUMBALAMPO,PIN682506. 12LIJAMOLPR, AGED43YEARS D/O.RAJAPPAN.V.M,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,NIVEDHYAMHOUSE, – KODAMTHURUTH,KUTHIYATHODEPO,CHERTHALA,ALAPPUZHA,PIN 688533. 13MARYNISHATJ, AGED45YEARS CONDUCTORGRADEI,KANACHAKKANATTUHOUSE,KERALASTATE ROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,AROORPO, – ALAPPUZHA,PIN688534. 14MIBINDHU, AGED43YEARS D/OKRRAMANPILLAI,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,BININIVAS, – KALAYATTIKKARAPO,ARYANKAVU,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN 682315. ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` 15SREENIVASK.B, AGED42YEARS S/OBHASKARAN.K.A,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,KAVUTHARAHOUSE, – KADAVANTHRA.PO,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN682020. 16ANILKUMAR.G, AGED45YEARS S/OGOPALANN.C,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,REVATHIBHAVAN, – KANNADPO,ERNAKULAMDISTRICT,PIN682031. 17NOUFALTE, AGED45YEARS S/O.IBRAHIM,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,JASMINEVILLA, – THRICHATTUKULAMPO,PANAVALLY,CHETHALA,,PIN688526. 18SANEESHP.B, AGED51YEARS S/O.BAHULEYAN,CONDUCTORGRADEI,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,DEPOTERNAKULAM,PANOORHOUSE,SN – ROAD,PERUMBADAPPU,PALLURUTHY,PIN682006. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1THESTATEOFKERALA, REPRESENTEDBYTHECHIEFSECRETARY,SECRETARIAT, – THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695001. 2KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 3THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 4THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, ``` ``` 9 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 10 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41286 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1V.RAMESH, AGED49YEARS S/OVELAYUDHAN,KALATHINGALHOUSE,KARAMPATTA, – KOZHINJAMPARAP.O,PALAKKAD,PIN678555. 2V.VENU, AGED48YEARS S/OVELAYUDHAN,CHOORIKKALHOUSE,POLPULLYP.O,PALAKKAD, – PIN678552. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 4THEDISTRICTTRANSPORTOFFICER, – KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD,PIN 678001. 5THESUPERINTENDENT, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,PALAKKAD, – PIN678001. BYADVDEEPUTHANKAN ``` ``` 11 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 12 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41369 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1M.MAHESH, AGED39YEARS S/OMANILAL,MAHESHBHAVAN,NADUVILAKKARA,UMAYANALLURP.O, – KOLLAM,,PIN691589. 2D.ANILKUMAR, AGED38YEARS – S/ODIVAKARAN,AJIMANDIRAM,MANNADIP.O,KOLLAM,PIN 691530. 3MANOJ.T, AGED38YEARS S/OTHANKAPPANSAMUEL,THARAYILPUTHENVEEDU,VAYALAP.O, – ADOOR,KOLLAM,PIN691554. 4REMYARNAIR, AGED38YEARS D/OK.RAVEENDRANNAIR,NK.R.NILAYAM,THUVAYOORSOUTH – PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT,PIN691552. 5SREEJAVNAIR, AGED39YEARS D/OTHANKAPPANPILLAI,KARTHIKA,ELANGAMANGALAM,ENATHU, – PATHANAMTHITTADISTRICT,PIN-691526,PIN691526. 6SMITHAGPILLAI, AGED38YEARS D/OGOPALAKRISHNAPILLAI,INCHAKKADDU,MYLOMPO, – KOTTARAKARA,KOLLAMDISTRICT,,PIN691560. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, ``` ``` 13 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. ``` ``` 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 14 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41539 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` S.SURESH, AGED49YEARS DRIVERGRADE1,KSRTC,CHITOORDEPOT,S/OSWAMINATHAN, – THUVANKODEHOUSE,PALLASSANA,POPALAKKAD,PIN678555. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 15 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 22[ND] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 1ST POUSHA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 41546 OF 2023`** ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` DENNYTHOMAS, AGED50YEARS S/OPPTHOMAS,PARAYAKATTIL,SOUTHCHELLANAMPO,ERNAKULAM – DISTRICT,,PIN682008. ``` ``` BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2CHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONTRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATIONTRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. ``` ``` BYADVDEEPUTHANKAN ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 16 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV FRIDAY,THE22[ND]DAYOFDECEMBER2023/1STPOUSHA,1945 WP(C)NO.41628OF2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1M.MANEESHKV, AGED46YEARS S/OMKUNJIRAMAN,NEDUVAPURAM,KARUVELLORPO,KANNUR – DISTRICT,PIN670521. 2RAJUK, AGED53YEARS – S/ODANODARAN,KARIKKANHOUSE,PANNIYOORPO,KANNUR,PIN 670142. 3MANOJPK, AGED51YEARS S/OPKUNJIRAMAN,POOMANGALAMHOUSE,ERAVTTYP.O,KANNUR, – PIN670589. 4PRADEEPANK, AGED53YEARS S/ONECHATHUKUTTY,UTHRAMVILAYANCODE,MANDOOR,KANNUR, – PIN670504. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, – TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN 695023. 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, ``` ``` 17 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. ``` ``` BYADVDEEPUTHANKAN ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 18 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ``` INTHEHIGHCOURTOFKERALAATERNAKULAM PRESENT THEHONOURABLEMR.JUSTICERAJAVIJAYARAGHAVANV FRIDAY,THE22[ND]DAYOFDECEMBER2023/1STPOUSHA,1945 WP(C)NO.41950OF2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` GIRIJA.C, AGED47YEARS CONDUCTORGRADE-I,ADOORDEPOT,ADOOR,KERALASTATEROAD TRANSPORTCORPORATION,RESIDINGATHARIBHAVANAM, – PANNIVIZHA,ANANDHAPPALLY,P.O.ADOOR,PIN691525. BYADVS. V.PREMCHAND HALIYAT.P. MAHADEVM.J. ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION, REPRESENTEDBYITSCHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, – PIN695023. 2THECHAIRMANANDMANAGINGDIRECTOR, KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. 3THEEXECUTIVEDIRECTOR,(ADMINISTRATION&VIGILANCE) KERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION,TRANSPORTBHAVAN, – FORTP.O.,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN695023. ``` ``` SRI.DEEPUTHANKAN,SC ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 22.12.2023,ALONGWITHWP(C).37607/2023ANDCONNECTEDCASES,THE COURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` ``` 19 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **JUDGMENT** [37607, 37622, 38612, 41286, 41369, 41539, 41546, 41628, 41950 of 2023] The petitioners in these cases are working as Drivers and Conductors in various depots of the Kerala Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as 'the KSRTC'). They have approached this Court, impugning the general order of transfer issued by the respondents, transferring them to various depots. 2. As common contentions are raised in all these writ petitions, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Facts in the individual cases, as far as it is relevant, shall be stated separately. ## 3. a) **W.P.(C) No. 37607/2023** : The petitioners are all Drivers attached to the Mannarkad and Palakkad Depot. They have been transferred by Exts.P2 and P3 general order of transfer. ## b) **W.P.(C) No. 37622/2023** : The petitioner is working as a Driver Grade-II in the North Paravur Depot. He has been transferred by Ext. P2 general order of transfer to Chathannur. c) **W.P.(C) No. 38612/2023** ``` 20 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` The petitioners are working as Drivers and Conductors attached to the Ernakulam Depot of the KSRTC. They are aggrieved by Exts.P2 and P3 orders by which they stand transferred to various depots. ## d) **W.P.(C) No. 41286/2023** The petitioners are Drivers attached to Chittur Depot in Palakkad Circle. They are aggrieved by Ext.P2 general order of transfer. ## e) **W.P.(C) No. 41369/2023** The petitioners are working as Conductors attached to the Adoor Depot of KSRTC in the Kollam Circle. They are aggrieved by Ext.P2 general order of transfer. ## f) **W.P.(C) No. 41546/2023** The petitioner is working as a Driver Grade-II in the Ernakulam Depot. He is aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of transfer by which he stands transferred to Thiruvananthapuram Central Unit. ## g) **W.P.(C) No. 41628/2023** The petitioners are working as Drivers and Conductors attached to the Payyannur Depot in Kannur Circle. They are aggrieved by Ext.P2 general order of transfer issued by the respondents transferring the petitioners. ## h) **W.P.(C) No. 41950/2023** The petitioner is a Conductor attached to Adoor Depot within Kollam ``` 21 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` Circle. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P2 general order of transfer. ## i) **W.P.(C) No. 41539/2023** The petitioner is employed as a Driver Grade-I in the Corporation. He has approached this Court being aggrieved by Ext.P2 order of general transfer. 4. The contentions advanced by the petitioners in all these writ petitions filed by the very same counsel can be summarized as under: a) The service conditions of the employees of the KSRTC are governed by the bipartite settlement between the management and the recognized trade unions of which the petitioners are members. The settlement clearly details the manner in which the transfer is to be effected within the KSRTC. The impugned orders are clearly in violation of the terms of the bipartite agreement. b) As per the settlement, Circle seniority is the main criterion to be adopted while transferring an employee. The said criteria have been overlooked by the respondents. The persons who have been continuously working in the same unit have not been touched, and persons with much lesser tenure have been transferred. This action is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ``` 22 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` c) As per the settlement, general transfer can be effected only in the month of April every year so that displacement of families is minimal. The impugned transfer order has been issued after almost six months. It would disrupt the academics of the children of most of the employees, and they would be subjected to serious hardships. d) The bipartite settlement agreement is binding on the management and the employees in view of Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The respondents were, therefore, not entitled to act in violation to Ext.P1. e) The Government has issued orders vide G.O (P) No. 3/2017 dated 25.2.2017 that all departments under the Government shall maintain electronic database and shall ensure that all data with regard to transfer and appointment are maintained online. In terms of the Government directions, the general transfer order was earlier issued using the G spark software. However, while issuing the impugned general transfer order, the software was not used. This is with a view to give an undue advantage to certain vested interests. f) Details of individuals who have been retained in the very same station for decades are highlighted (Ext.P6 and P7 in W.P.(C) No. 38612/2023). Instead of transferring such individuals, persons with lesser periods have been transferred. ``` 23 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` g) As per the settlement, those individuals who have completed their incumbency by working out of their home unit or in isolated places are entitled to transfer to their home unit. This criterion has not been considered by the respondents while issuing the transfer order. h) The wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 41369 of 2023 is suffering from Cancer, as is evident from Ext.P4 produced in the said writ petition. If the transfer order is given effect, it would not be possible to continue with the treatment which is now being carried out at the RCC, Thiruvananthapuram. The wife of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 41539 of 2023 is undergoing infertility treatment for the past one year. Serious hardship would be caused, if the petitioner is now transferred. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, denying the contentions advanced by the petitioner. The following contentions are raised: - a) Transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no right to be posted at a particular place. - b) Unless the order of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or is mala fide in nature, this Court will not be justified in interfering with the same. - c) Guidelines for transfer are not statutory, and mere violation of the guidelines will not be a reason for interfering with the order of ``` 24 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` transfer. - d) The Corporation has more than 18000 employees and the transfer proceedings were initiated in the month of April itself. The transfer order was interfered with by the Government, and the same had to be frozen. - e) The appointments in the Corporation are done on a State-wide basis, and therefore, the proportion of geographical requirement and staff availability is not uniformly distributed. As the Corporation is entrusted with the duty of providing a secure, efficient, and properly coordinated system of road transport service, they are fully empowered to deploy its employees all over the State. - f) Respondents have taken all efforts to comply with the terms of the bipartite settlement to the extent possible. In a behemoth organization like the corporation, it may not be possible to carry out the terms with pinpoint accuracy. In those cases where it is noticed that some manner of injustice has been caused, the respondents would consider their representation and try to assuage their grievance. - g) Contentions have been raised in the writ petition that certain employees are retained in the same unit for years together. However, none of those persons have been arrayed as parties to the ``` 25 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` proceedings. As per the bilateral settlement, protection/preference is granted to certain employees. Employees are also exempted from transfer on compassionate grounds. Without those employees in the party array, it may not be possible for this Court to ascertain the genuineness of the allegations levelled by the petitioner. - h) The Corporation has effected the transfer based on the seniority list after giving relaxation to eligible employees. - i) Most of the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 37607/2023 have been working in Mannarkad and Palakkad Depot for over a decade, as has been stated in the counter. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 37622/2023 has been working in his home circle from 2019 onwards. Most of the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos. 38612 of 2023, 41286 of 2023, 41546 of 2023, 41628 of 2023 and 41950 of 2023 have been working in the Ernakulam Depot for more than a decade except for a few. 6. Sri. Prem Chand, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, reiterated the contentions in the petitions. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the respondents were bound to implement Ext.P1 settlement entered into between the employees. The refusal on the part of the respondents to effect the transfer by using the G-spark software clearly shows that the objective of the Corporation was to shield certain employees ``` 26 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` from the transfer. It is submitted that if the terms of the settlement were adhered to, the respondents were bound to scrupulously follow circle seniority, and the benefit ought to have been granted to employees who have completed the incumbency period. The learned counsel points out that the transfer order effected during the last quarter of the year is clearly against the guidelines. 7. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that the Corporation is one of the largest employers in the State with close to 20000 employees. It is on account of administrative exigencies and to streamline the operations that a general transfer order has been issued, which affects almost 4000 personnel. According to the learned counsel, the majority of Conductors who are working in the KSRTC are from the northern part of Kerala, and the majority of drivers are from the southern part. It would not be possible for the Corporation to station all the Conductors and Drivers in their home units or to their chosen places as it would disrupt the entire service. It is submitted that for administrative exigencies and to accede to the long pending request of various employees who are working out of their home unit, the general transfer order was issued. Reliance is placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in **Babu V State of Kerala[1]** , and it is argued that the orders of transfer made in the exercise of > 1 [1988 (2) KLT 258] ``` 27 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` administrative discretion may not be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution **.** Reliance is also placed on **Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation[2]** to substantiate his contention. Insofar as the grievance of the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No.41369/2023 is concerned, it is submitted that the fact that the wife of the 1st petitioner is suffering from cancer has not been reckoned and the respondents have no objection in considering the grievance sympathetically after perusing the records. 8. I have considered the submissions advanced and have gone through the records. 9. The grievance of the petitioners in the instant cases concerns the inclusion of the petitioners in the general order of transfer. 10. The first contention of the learned counsel is that the bipartite settlement agreement has been violated. It is his contention that the settlement is one entered into under Section 18 of the ID Act between the management and the unions. In order to substantiate their contention that the agreement has been violated, they assert that the circle seniority has not been adhered to. It is also contended that many of the petitioners have completed their incumbency period by working out of their home unit and these aspects of the matter were not considered while issuing the general transfer order. The next related contention is that despite the > 2 [2023 (3) KLT 893] ``` 28 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` transfer being effected using G spark software in the month of April 2023, the same was frozen and later the impugned transfer orders were issued without using the software. 11. At the outset itself it has to be noticed that what is under challenge is a general transfer order issued by the Corporation which has about 20000 employees. The above transfer directly affects about 4000 employees. It is undisputed that the appointments in the Corporation are done on a State-wide basis. Clearly, the Corporation has depots all over the State and it may not be possible to accommodate the employees in their respective home units. As highlighted by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, the majority of the drivers working in the KSRTC are from the northern part of Kerala and the majority of conductors are from the southern part. Records also reveal that there are about 8000 Drivers and 8000 Conductors working in the Corporation. In view of the above, it may not be possible for the Corporation to accommodate each and every employee in the place of their choice. In a circle where the requirement of drivers is 100, the number of drivers who seek transfer to their home unit may be much more. The Corporation may face a multitude of situations which are not contemplated in the bipartite agreement entered into between the parties. Furthermore, the financial situation of the Corporation is at its lowest ebb in its history, and without the financial support from the State Government, they are not in a position to pay even ``` 29 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` the retirement benefits of persons who retired years back, pay revision arrears and even the salary of its employees. Hundreds of past employees have been flocking to this Court seeking disbursal of their benefits, and this fact illustrates that the financial situation of the Corporation is precarious. In the above background, the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court, can be appreciated. ## 12. In **Gujarat Electricity Board and Another v Atmaram Sungomal Poshani**[3] , it was held by the Apex Court as under: **4.** Transfer of a government servant appointed to a particular cadre of transferable posts from one place to the other is an incident of service. No government servant or employee of Public Undertaking has legal right for being posted at any particular place. Transfer from one place to other is generally a condition of service and the employee has no choice in the matter. Transfer from one place to other is necessary in public interest and efficiency in the public administration. Whenever, a public servant is transferred he must comply with the order but if there be any genuine difficulty in proceeding on transfer it is open to him to make representation to the competent authority for stay, modification or cancellation of the transfer order. If the order of transfer is not stayed, modified or cancelled the concerned public servant must carry out the order of transfer. In the absence of any stay of the transfer order a public servant has no justification to avoid or evade the transfer order merely on the ground of having made a representation, or on the ground of his difficulty in moving from one place to the other. If he fails to proceed on transfer in compliance with the transfer order, he would expose himself to disciplinary action under the relevant rules, as has happened in the instant case. The respondent lost his service > 3 [1989 (2) SCC 602] ``` 30 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` as he refused to comply with the order of his transfer from one place to the other. ## 13. In **State of M.P. and Another v. S. S. Kourav and Ors.[4]** , the Apex Court held that the Courts or Tribunals are not appellate forums to decide on transfers of officers on administrative grounds. It is for the administration to take appropriate decisions and such decisions shall stand unless they are vitiated either by mala fides or extraneous considerations without any factual background foundation. ## 14. In **B. Varadha Rao (supra)** , it was held by the Apex Court as ## under: **5…………** “It is an accepted principle that in public service transfer is an incident of service. It is also an implied condition of service and appointing authority has a wide discretion in the matter. The government is the best judge to decide how to distribute and utilise the services of its employees. However, this power must be exercised honestly, bona fide and reasonably. It should be exercised in public interest. If the exercise of power is based on extraneous considerations or for achieving an alien purpose or an oblique motive it would amount to mala fide and colourable exercise of power. Frequent transfers, without sufficient reasons to justify such transfers, cannot, but be held as mala fide. A transfer is mala fide when it is made not for professed purpose, such as in normal course or in public or administrative interest or in the exigencies of service but for other purpose, that is to accommodate another person for undisclosed reasons. It is the basic principle of rule of law and good administration, that even administrative actions should be just and fair.” The observation that transfer is also an implied condition of service is just an observation in passing. It certainly cannot be relied > 4 [1995 SCC (L&S) 666] ``` 31 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` upon in support of the contention that an order of transfer ipso facto varies to the disadvantage of a government servant, any of his conditions of service making the impugned order appealable under Rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules. **6.** One cannot but deprecate that frequent, unscheduled and unreasonable transfers can uproot a family, cause irreparable harm to a government servant and drive him to desperation. It disrupts the education of his children and leads to numerous other complications and problems and results in hardship and demoralisation. It therefore follows that the policy of transfer should be reasonable and fair and should apply to everybody equally. But, at the same time, it cannot be forgotten that so far as superior or more responsible posts are concerned, continued posting at one station or in one department of the government is not conducive to good administration. It creates vested interest and therefore we find that even from the British times the general policy has been to restrict the period of posting for a definite period. We wish to add that the position of Class III and Class IV employees stand on a different footing. We trust that the government will keep these considerations in view while making an order of transfer. 15. In **Babu v. State of Kerala** [1988(2) KLT 258], a Division Bench of this Court had occasion to observe as under while considering a challenge against an order of transfer: 1…………….Orders of transfer made in exercise of administrative discretion should not ordinarily be interfered with under Art.226 of the Constitution. Guidelines for transfer are not statutory. They are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer. They are not exhaustive. In administration variety of situation not contemplated by the guidelines may arise which have to be taken into account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference. ``` 32 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` 16. In **Nixy James v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation[5]** , a learned Single Judge of this Court had occasion to encapsulate the law relating to the transfer of employee by referring to the earlier precedents. It would be appropriate to extract paragraph Nos. 6 to 9, which I feel applies to the facts of the instant case. “6. Law is too well settled that, transfer is an incidence of service and the employee has no legal right in this behalf. It is also well settled that, unless the orders of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides, Courts should be loathe in interfering with the same. Courts will be extremely circumspect, will act with restraint and may not ponder into hairsplitting arguments, to scan the decisions in orders of transfer. The Corporation cannot effectually work when the employees act intolerably or spitefully amongst themselves or is engaged in activities which go against the best interests of the Corporation. Transfer can be effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. 7. When an employee is transferred to maintain the smooth running of an organization, it is not to be understood as a punishment. The element of punishment is absent therein. The idea is to maintain the internal harmony of the organisation and to safeguard its smooth functioning. In every case of erratic or in appropriate behaviour by a subordinate, the employer is not bound to initiate departmental action and to impose punishment. For effecting a transfer, there need not be any enquiry conducted to first ascertain whether there was misbehaviour or conduct unbecoming of an employee. To hold otherwise would frustrate the very purpose of transferring an employee in public interest or exigencies of administration, to enforce a decorum and ensure probity. 8. The question whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division etc., are matters for the employer to consider depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. It is he who knows best, where an employee should be deployed for an effective discharge of his/her duties for the establishment. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent on the transfer are not sufficient to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in public interest. (Babu v. State of Kerala (1988 (2) KLT 258), Vasu v. High Court of Kerala (1989 (1) KLT 16), Dinamony v. Dt. Superintendent of Police, Kollam (1994 (1) KLT 326), P.Pushpakaran v. Chairman, Coir Board (Ker.) (1978 KLT 539 ), Rajan v. Director General of Police (1999 (2) KLT 673), Shilpi Bose v. State of Bihar (1991 Supp. (2) SCC 659), Union of India v. S.L.Abbas (1993) 4 SCC 357), National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd. v. Shri Bhagwan (2001) 8 SCC 574), Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Janardhan Debanath & Anr. (2004) 4 SCC 245), Divyamol R.S. v. Director General Central Industrial Security Force, New Delhi & Ors. (2022 (4) KLT OnLine 1093). 9. In addition to the law on transfers as noticed supra, it is appropriate to refer to clause 11 of the Transfer Guidelines in Appendix-IV of the Long-Term Settlement Agreement, 2012 of the Corporation. A copy of the same has been produced along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R1(a). Clause 11 thereof deals with “Transfer on Administrative ground due to disciplinary issues”. Therefore, the Corporation is enabled even under the Transfer Guidelines to effect transfers of its 5 2023 (3) KLT 893] ``` 33 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` employees on administrative grounds, to maintain a harmonious and working atmosphere at its offices.” 17. Certain specific instances have been highlighted that certain employees have been retained in the same unit violating the circle seniority. However, none of those individuals have been made parties to the proceedings. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, certain preference is granted to certain categories of persons like members of the Scheduled Tribe, disabled persons, persons with children suffering from disability in excess of 50%, individuals suffering from various ailments etc. Without such details, it may not be possible for this Court to ascertain as to whether any individual has been permitted to work in the very same station for longer periods of time, violating the circle seniority. 18. The next contention is with regard to the transfer of the petitioners despite them having completed the incumbency period. I find from the counter affidavit that most of the petitioners have been working in the same unit for almost a decade. Even the rest have been working in the same unit for more than three years. As laid down by the Apex Court, transfer is an incidence of service, and the employee has no legal right to interdict the same unless there are materials to suggest that the order of transfer is vitiated by statutory violations or mala fides. Transfer can be ``` 34 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` effected on administrative grounds as long as it is intended to aid proper administration and to sub-serve internal discipline. The question of whether an employee is to be transferred to a different division, etc., is a matter for the employer to consider, depending upon the administrative necessities. The power to transfer an employee in a transferable service is within the prerogative of the employer. The inconvenience caused to the employee and his family consequent to the transfer is not sufficient ground to interfere with the orders of transfer. A transfer can always be done in the public interest. Furthermore, in **Babu** (supra), it has been held by a Division Bench of this Court that guidelines for transfer are not statutory, and they are meant for guidance in the matter of transfer. They are not exhaustive. In administration, a variety of situations not contemplated by the guidelines may arise, which have to be taken into account. Merely because a guideline has been violated in the matter of transfer, that would not by itself be a sufficient ground for interference. 19. In view of the discussion above, I do not think any cause for interference is made out in W.P.(C) Nos. 37607, 37622, 38612, 41286, 41546, 41628, 41950, 41539 of 2023. Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 41369 of 2023 is concerned, the wife of the 1st petitioner is suffering from cancer, which fact is not disputed. This Court, at the time of admission itself had ordered that if the 1st petitioner has not been relieved pursuant to the impugned order, any action shall be deferred. The respondents shall ``` 35 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` sympathetically consider the grievance of the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 41369 of 2023 and take a decision within four weeks. Until then, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 insofar as the 1st petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 41369 of 2023 is concerned will stand deferred. Resultantly, a) W.P.(C) Nos. 37607, 37622, 38612, 41286, 41546, 41628, 41950, 41539 of 2023 will stand dismissed. b) Insofar as W.P.(C) No. 41369/2023 is concerned, the prayer sought for by the petitioners except the 1st petitioner will stand dismissed. The 1st petitioner is directed to prefer a representation before the 2nd respondent highlighting his grievances. The 2nd respondent shall consider the same and take a decision within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Until then, proceedings pursuant to Ext.P2 will stand deferred insofar as the 1st petitioner is concerned. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** Ps ``` 36 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37622/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFTHECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTION OFTHEGENERALORDERDATED04.11.2023ISSUEDBY 2NDRESPONDENT. Exhibit-P3ORDERDATED15.07.2023ISSUEDBY2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P4ATRUECOPYOFTHEPETITIONDATED21.07.2023 SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHE4TH RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P5ATRUECOPYOFTHELISTSHOWINGSOMEOFTHE NAMEOFTHEEMPLOYEESWHOHAVENOTCOMPLETED INCUMBENCYPERIODINNORTHPARAVOORDEPOT. Exhibit-P6ATRUESENIORITYLISTOFDRIVERSINNORTH PARVOORDEPODATED12-5-2022. RESPONDENTEXHIBITS ExhibitR1(A)AtruecopyofthejudgmentofthisHon'ble Courtdated31/07/2023inWANo.1375/2023. ``` ``` 37 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 38612/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit-P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`SERVICE AND WAGES SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OF THE`| ||`YEAR 2021.`| |`Exhibit 2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`GENERAL ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 04.11.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit 3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`GENERAL ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 04.11.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit-P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE GO DATED 25.02.2017 ISSUED`| ||`BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,`| ||`GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.`| |`Exhibit-P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.10.2021`| ||`ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY`| ||`GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.`| |`Exhibit-P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`SENIORITY LIST OF CONDUCTORS IN ERNAKULAM DEPOT`| ||`AS ON JULY 2023.`| |`Exhibit-P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`TRANSFER LIST DATED 04.11.2023 REVEALING THE`| ||`NAMES OF PERSONS WHO HAVE NOT COMPLETED`| ||`INCUMBENCY PERIOD.`| |`Exhibit-P8`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 19.07.2023`| ||`SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER BEFORE THE`| ||`DISTRICT OFFICER, KSRTC ERNAKULAM.`| |`RESPONDENT EXHIBITS`|| |`EXHIBIT R1-(A)`|`True copy of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court`| ||`dated 31/07/2023 in WA No. 1375/2023.`| |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |`Exhibit-P9`|`A true copy of the order dated 10.11.2021`| ||`issued by the 2nd Respondent.`| ``` 38 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41286/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. ``` ``` Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE GENERALORDEROFTRANSFERDATED04.11.2023. ISSUEDBY2NDRESPONDENTINRESPECTOFDRIVERS. ``` ``` Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLISTDATEDNILIN RESPECTOFDRIVERSINPALAKKADCIRCLE. AnnexureA1COUNTERAFFIDAVITFILEDINW.P.(C)NO.38612OF 2023. RESPONDENTANNEXURES AnnexureA1counteraffidavitfiledinW.P.(C)No.38612of 2023. ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn.39 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41369/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. ``` ``` Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE GENERALORDEROFTRANSFERDATED04.11.2023. ``` ``` ISSUEDBY2NDRESPONDENTINRESPECTOF CONDUCTORS. ``` ``` Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLISTINRESPECTOF CONDUCTORSINKOLLAMCIRCLE. ``` ``` Exhibit-P4ATRUECOPYOFTHECLINICALDETAILSOF1ST PETITIONER'SWIFEDATED16.05.2012FROM REGIONALCANCERCENTRE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ``` ``` 40 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41539/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE GENERALORDERNO.700/CMD(SPC)/2023/RTCOF TRANSFERDATED04.11.2023ISSUEDBY2ND RESPONDENTINRESPECTOFDRIVERS. Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHEPETITIONDATED22.07.2022 SUBMITTEDBYTHEPETITIONERBEFORETHE2ND RESPONDENT. Exhibit-P4ATRUECOPYOFTHECOPYOFACKNOWLEDGEMENT DATED22.07.2023RECEIVEDBYTHEDISTRICT OFFICERPALAKKADNO.P4/1153/2023. Exhibit-P5ATRUECOPYOFTHEREPRESENTATIONDATED 31.07.2023ADDRESSEDTOTHE2NDRESPONDENT ALONGWITHTHETREATMENTCERTIFICATEISSUEDBY CIMARFERTILITYCENTRE. ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn.41 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41546/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 ``` ``` Exhibit-P2 ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE GENERALORDERDATED04.11.2023ISSUEDBY2ND RESPONDENT. ``` ``` 42 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41628/2023`** |`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`|| |---|---| |`Exhibit-P1`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`SERVICE AND WAGES AGREEMENT OF THE YEAR 2021.`| |`Exhibit-P2`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`GENERAL ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 04.11.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT.`| |`Exhibit-P3`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE`| ||`GENERAL ORDER OF TRANSFER DATED 04.11.2023`| ||`ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF DRIVERS`| ||`IS MARKED.`| |`Exhibit-P4`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST IN RESPECT OF`| ||`CONDUCTORS IN PAYANNUR DEPOT.`| |`Exhibit-P5`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST IN RESPECT OF`| ||`DRIVERS IN PAYANNUR DEPOT.`| |`Exhibit-P6`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`PETITIONERS 1 , 3 AND 4 BEFORE THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT DATED 9-12-2023.`| |`Exhibit-P7`|`A TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION SUBMITTED BY THE`| ||`2ND PETITIONER DATED 09.12.2023 BEFORE THE 2ND`| ||`RESPONDENT.`| |`Annexure A1`|`COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED IN W.P.(C) NO. 38612 OF`| ||`2023.`| ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn.43 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 41950/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. ``` ``` Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFRELEVANTPORTIONOFTHEGENERAL ORDEROFTRANSFERDATED04.11.2023ISSUEDBY 2NDRESPONDENTINRESPECTOFCONDUCTORS. ``` ``` Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLISTINRESPECTOF CONDUCTORSINKOLLAMCIRCLE. ``` ``` RESPONDENTANNEXURES AnnexureA1counteraffidavitfiledinW.P.(C)No.38612of 2023. ``` ``` 44 ``` ``` WP(C)NO.37607OF2023&Conn. ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 37607/2023`** ``` PETITIONEREXHIBITS Exhibit-P1 ``` ``` ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE SERVICEANDWAGESAGREEMENTOFTHEYEAR2021. ``` ``` Exhibit-P2ATRUECOPYOFTHERELEVANTPORTIONOFTHE GENERALORDERDATED04.11.2023ISSUEDBY1ST RESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit-P3ATRUECOPYOFTHEORDERDATED4-11-2023ISSUED BY1STRESPONDENT. ``` ``` Exhibit-P4ATRUECOPYOFTHESENIORITYLISTINRESPECTOF CONDUCTORSINPALAKKADCIRCLE. ``` ``` RESPONDENTEXHIBITS EXHIBITR1-(A)AtruecopyofthejudgmentofthisHon'ble Courtdated31/07/2023inWANo.1375/2023. ```