Premnath.R.S v. Kerala State Electricity Board

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALEXANDER THOMAS** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIJU ABRAHAM** **THURSDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 7TH MAGHA, 1943 WA NO. 137 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 30186/2021 OF HIGH COURT OF** ## **KERALA** ## **APPELLANT/PETITIONER:** **PREMNATH.R.S AGED 52 YEARS S/O. SURENDRAN NAIR, SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, ELECTRICAL SECTION, NAGAROOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 601** **BY ADVS. KALEESWARAM RAJ VARUN C.VIJAY THULASI K. RAJ** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:** - **1 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004** - **2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHAIRMAN KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004** - **3 THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM) KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAIDYUTHI BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 004** - **4 EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KSEB ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695101** - **5 SALIL KUMAR S.S ELECTRICAL DIVISION, ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695101 SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH, SC, KSEB** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON** **27.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.A. No. 137 of 2022 2 ## ALEXANDER THOMAS & VIJU ABRAHAM, JJ. ================================================ W.A. No. 137 of 2022 [a _rising out of the impugned interim order dated 20.1.2022 in WP(C) No.30186/2021]_ ================================================= Dated this the 27[th] day of January, 2022 ## J U D G M E N T ## ALEXANDER THOMAS, J. The appellant herein has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.30186/2021 with the following prayers: _"_ - _i) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P5 to the extent to which it proposes to transfer the petitioner from Nagaroor Electrical Section, Thiruvananthapuram to Kodencherry Electrical Section, Kozhikode, as unjust, arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and vitiated by malafides;_ - _ii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext.P6 to the extent to which it promotes the 5[th] Respondent as Senior Superintendent and post him to the place of the petitioner as unjust, arbitrary, illegal, unsustainable and vitiated by malafides;_ - _iii) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P11 as unjust, arbitrary and illegal;_ - _iii.a) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing Ext. P12 and P15 as unjust, arbitrary, illegal and unsustaible;_ - _iii.b) To declare that the petitioner has been continuing in the Electrical section throughout in spite of the impugned orders, in the view of the stay order granted by this Hon'ble Court, and that he is also entitled to continue in Electrical Section, Nagaroor, Thiruvananthapuram;_ - _iii.c) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pass orders posting the respondent no.5 to Electrical Division, Attingal Thiruvananthapuram station;_ - _iii.d) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 to pass orders declaring that the petitioner has not been legally relieved from Electrical Section, Nagaroor and regularizing his service including the days during which he was not permitted to sign, by treating the same as duty;_ W.A. No. 137 of 2022 3 - _iv) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Senior Superintendent at Electrical Section, Nagaroor, Thiruvananthapuram for a minimum period of 3 years and is not liable to be transferred out as proposed in Exts P5, P6, P11, P12 and P15;_ - _v) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 to 4 to pass orders retaining the petitioner as Senior Superintendent at Nagaroor Electrical Section, Thiruvananthapuram and to modify Exts.P5 and P6 to that extent and to cancel Ext. P11, P12 and P15;_ - _vi) To issue such other orders, directions or writs as may be prayed for and that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit on the facts and circumstances of the case."_ ## 2. The interim prayer sought for in the above Writ Petition ## (Civil) is as follows: _"For the reasons stated in the accompanying Writ Petition, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass an interim order directing the respondents 1 to 4 to retain the petitioner as Senior Superintendent at Electrical Section, Nagaroor, Thiruvananthapuram, by keeping in abeyance Exts.P5, P6 and P11 as against the petitioner and 5[th] Respondent, until this writ petition is heard and finally disposed of."_ 3. The learned Single Judge, at the admission stage, has passed an interim order dated 22.12.2021 in the above WP(C) ordering that the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board (KSEB) has taken notice for the respondents and that the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB has submitted that another incumbent has already assumed charge in the post held by the writ petitioner, and very guardedly the learned Single Judge has ordered that if the petitioner has not been relieved, then he shall be allowed to continue in the same post W.A. No. 137 of 2022 4 till 5.1.2022 and the writ petition was ordered to be posted on 5.1.2022. 4. When the case had come up for consideration on 5.1.2022, it was submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB that another incumbent, who was ordered to be transferred and posted to the post previously held by the writ petitioner prior to the impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order dated 13.10.2021 and that the said incumbent has already taken charge on 21.12.2021 itself and that therefore, the interim order granted on 5.1.2022 has become practically infructuous etc. Further that knowing fully well that the other incumbent, viz the 5[th] respondent, has already taken charge of the very same post, the appellant had forcefully signed in the attendance register on that day, and that disciplinary action has been taken against the appellant, etc. The learned Single Judge, thereupon, has passed an interim order on 5.1.2022 in this WP(C) ordering that the matter may require detailed hearing and further that the disciplinary action proposed to be taken against the writ petitioner for having signed the attendance register after 21.12.2021 shall be kept in abeyance till the petitioner's right to continue in the present station is decided. 5. Thereafer, it appears that the respondent KSEB authorities have filed counter affidavit in the WP(C). The learned Single Judge has W.A. No. 137 of 2022 5 considered the matter on 20.1.2022 and has passed an order on that day wherein it has been found that since, the contesting respondent No.5 has already assumed charge in the post concerned, there is no question of permitting two employees to continue in the same station as against the single sanctioned post and that therefore, the interim order earlier granted on 22.12.2021 will stand vacated. The appellant has now filed the instant intra court appeal under Sec.5(i) of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, to challenge the interim order dated 20.1.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in the above WP(C) vacating the earlier interim order dated 22.12.2021 rendered in the WP(C). 6. Heard Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant/writ petitioner and Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB appearing for official respondents 1 to 4. In the nature of the order proposed to be passed by us in this Writ Appeal, notice to contesting respondent No.5 will stand dispensed with. 7. A brief reference to the facts and circumstances of the case will be pertinent. It appears that the appellant has been posted as Senior Superintendent of the respondent KSEB in the present station at Nagaroor, Thiruvananthapuram district, as per order dated 1.8.2019. The respondent KSEB authorities have issued the impugned Ext.P-5 W.A. No. 137 of 2022 6 proceedings dated 13.10.2021 transferring about 478 employees of the respondent KSEB, in which the name of the appellant herein appears as Serial No.257 thereof, and it has been specifically ordered therein that the appellant will stand transferred from his present station at Nagaroor in Thiruvananthapuram district to Kodenchery in Kozhikode district. Further, it appears that the 5[th] respondent herein, who was working in the lower category, was promoted as Senior Superintendent and consequent to the promotion order, he was ordered by another separate proceedings to be transferred from his previous station at Attingal to Nagaroor, both in Thiruvananthapuram district in the post of Senior Superintendent held by the appellant. Being aggrieved by the impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order, the appellant herein had earlier approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition (Civil) WP(C).No.24679/2021. This Court had then passed Ext.P-7 interim order dated 9.11.2021 in the said WP(C).No.24679/2021 ordering that the respondent KSEB authorities will furnish instructions to the learned Standing Counsel and that the case will stand posted to 12.11.2021 and that in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall not be relieved from the present station, if not already relieved. It is common ground that at that point of time, the appellant was not relieved from his station at Nagaroor and he had then continued in the same station on account of W.A. No. 137 of 2022 7 Ext.P-7 and as subsequently directed in Ext.P-8 judgment of this Court. This Court, finally disposed of said WP(C).No.24679/2021, as per Ext.P-8 judgment rendered on 12.11.2021 directing that the writ petitioner may file representation against the transfer order at Ext.P-5 herein before the competent authority of the respondent KSEB authorities, who was then directed to consider the same after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, etc. 8. Thereafter, the 3[rd] respondent Chief Engineer (HRM) of the KSEB has passed the impugned Ext.P-11 order dated 18.12.2021 ordering that the impugned order at Ext.P-5 herein transferring the petitioner from Nagaroor in Thiruvananthapuram district to Kodenchery in Kozhikode district, was on the basis of a general transfer order issued by the respondent KSEB whereby about 478 employees have been transferred out, and that the said transfer order of various incumbents including the writ petitioner has been made strictly in terms of the guidelines for transfer being followed by the Board, and that Clause 9 of Ext.P-4 guidelines deals with grant of index marks to various incumbents for considering their claims of transfer and posting, and that Clause 16 thereof deals with the methodology of consideration of various claims of transfer and posting, and that the index marks awarded to the appellant W.A. No. 137 of 2022 8 was low compared to many other incumbents, and the said index marks have been duly published in the official website of the respondent KSEB, and that the appellant has not chosen to object to the same and further that, about 33 Senior Superintendents including the writ petitioner have been transferred from Thiruvananthapuram district, and that no grounds have been made out for revoking the transfer order, etc. Thereafter, being aggrieved by Ext.P-5 transfer order as affirmed by Ext.P-11 order, the petitioner has filed the instant Writ Petition (Civil) with the aforementioned prayers, which resulted in the conditional interim order granted on 22.12.2021, which was vacated as per the impugned order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 20.1.2022. 9. The main contentions urged by the counsel for the writ appellant are two fold. That, the appellant was transferred and posted in the present station at Nagaroor only on 1.8.2019, and going by the norms in Clause 14 of Ext.P-4 guidelines, ordinarily, an incumbent is eligible to continue in the same station where he is presently working as per the transfer norms so long as he/she has not completed 3 years in that office,etc. Further that, the assumption of charge by the 5[th] respondent is blatantly against the statutory provisions contained in Appendix III to Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, which mandates that both the relieving W.A. No. 137 of 2022 9 officer and relieved officer shall be present at the time of effectuation of relieving of the incumbents concerned to workout the transfer order, etc. That, in the instant case the appellant was on leave on 21.12.2021 and the 5[th] respondent had taken charge unilaterally on 21.12.2021 and indisputably, both the officers were not present on that day and hence, the assumption of charge by the 5[th] respondent in pursuance of the impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order is illegal and ultra vires. The appellant would place reliance on the dictum laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case in _**Ramavarma Thirumulpad v. State of Kerala [ILR 1985 (2) Ker. 355, paras 6 & 7]**_ , etc. It is urged strongly by the appellant that the learned Single Judge has overlooked the abovesaid crucial aspect and hence, the impugned interim order dated 20.1.2022 renderd by the learned Single Judge in the above WP(C), vacating the earlier interim order dated 22.12.2021, would require interdiction at the hands of this appellate court. 10. Per contra, Sri.Antony Mukkath, learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB appearing for official respondents 1 to 4 would submit that Ext.P-4 does not contain the full text of the norms, and that the norm contained in Clause 14 of Ext.P-4 would be subject to various other norms, including that in Clauses 9, 16, etc. That, the request of transfer W.A. No. 137 of 2022 10 and posting of various incumbents were duly considered by the respondent KSEB authorities strictly in accordance with Ext.P-4 guidelines and norms, and Clause 9 deals with the methodology for granting index marks for evaluating various rival claims and Clause 16 also deals with further provisions in that regard giving priority etc, and that the index mark of the appellant was worked out only as 87,139 points, whereas a male officer would require atleast an index mark of 1,03,864 to continue at Thiruvananthapuram. That, 33 incumbents in the post of Senior Superintendent including the writ appellant were ordered to be transferred on the basis of general transfer order at Ext.P-5, which involves the transfer and posting of 478 employees, etc. Further that, the 5[th] respondent was working in lower category at Attingal, and he was ordered to be transferred to the post of Senior Superintendent, and the said incumbent, on promotion has been accommodated by transferring him to the post at Nagaroor, Thiruvananthapuram, which was earlier held by the appellant. Further that, more priority could have been given in the case of incumbents who have 1 year or less than 1 year to retire from service, whereas the appellant is stated to be aged only 52 years old and he will not come within that priority group. The transfer order was made on the bonafide exercise of powers of the respondent KSEB in W.A. No. 137 of 2022 11 public interest and in the exigencies of administration of the Department. Further that, the 5[th] respondent is due to retire from service on 31.5.2022 and therefore, going by the norms, his case for retention in Thiruvananthapuram district had to be considered. 11. After hearing both sides, we are not prepared to enter into the merits of the main controversy in the matter as the main matter in the above WP(C) is pending consideration before the learned Single Judge. Moreover, the interim order has been rendered by the learned Single Judge on 20.1.2022 vacating the earlier conditional interim order dated 22.12.2021 mainly on the ground that the 5[th] respondent had already taken charge in the post held by the writ petitioner on 21.12.2021 and therefore, permitting two incumbents to continue in the same station as against the single sanctioned post, may not be right and proper, and hence, the conditional interim order dated 22.12.2021 has been vacated. Therefore, we need to consider only the legality and correctness of the impugned interim order rendered by the learned Single Judge on 20.1.2022, for which purpose, there is no necessity for us to get into the merits of the main controversy. 12. In the instant case, the impugned transfer order at Ext.P-5 was issued on 13.10.2021. The learned Single Judge had earlier passed W.A. No. 137 of 2022 12 the interim order in the first round of writ proceedings as per Ext.P-7 dated 9.11.2021 ordering that the petitioner shall not be relieved from the present station, if he has not been already relieved. It is common ground that at that point of time, the writ petitioner was not relieved from the post at Nagaroor and hence, he continued in the said post pursuant to Ext.P-7 and also on the basis of subsequent directions issued by this Court in Ext.P-8 judgment. By Ext.P-8 judgment, this Court directed the consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the competent authority of respondent KSEB and that until then, the earlier arrangement allowing him to continue at Nagaroor in Thiruvananthapuram district would continue, etc. It is later that the 3[rd] respondent Chief Engineer (HRM) of the respondent KSEB has passed the impugned rejection order at Ext.P-11 dated 18.12.2021 rejectng the contentions of the writ petitioner and holding that the impugned transfer order at Ext.P-5 has been made out of bonafide considerations and in exercise of the lawful powers of transfer and in the exigencies of service, etc. 13. The petitioner has filed the instant WP(C) No.30186/2021 challenging the transfer order dated 13.10.2021 (Ext.P-5 herein) as well as the rejection order dated 18.12.2021 (Ext.P-11 herein) by filing W.A. No. 137 of 2022 13 abovesaid WP(C) on 22.12.2021. The records would indicate that the above WP(C) has come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge on 22.12.2021 itself and thereupon, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB has submitted before the learned Single Judge that contesting respondent No.5 has already assumed charge in the post and therefore, the plea for stay order has become infructuous, etc. The learned Single Judge very guardedly, after hearing both sides, has passed the initial interim order dated 22.12.2021 ordering that if the petitioner has not been relieved as on that day, then he shall be allowed to continue in said post at Nagaroor till 5.1.2022. 14. As per the case of the appellant, he was on leave on 21.12.2021 whereas according to the respondent KSEB, the 5[th] respondent had reported for duty to take charge in that post in Nagaroor in Thiruvananthapuram district in pursuance of the order transferring him to that post on 21.12.2021 itself. The main issue is as to whether the said assumption of charge by the 5[th] respondent is illegal inasmuch as, both the appellant and the 5[th] respondent were not present in said station for effectuation of such relieving process in pursuance of the impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order. The appellant places reliance on the provisions contained in Appendix III to Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, which W.A. No. 137 of 2022 14 ## reads as follows: _" APPENDIX – III RULES RELATING TO CHARGE OF OFFICE (Referred to in Rule 23 of Part I) Part I_ ## _CHARGE OF OFFICE_ _1. Unless for special recorded reasons (which must be of a public nature) the authority under whose orders the transfer takes place permits or requires it to be made in any particular case elsewhere, or otherwise, the charge of an office must be made over at its headquarters, both the relieving and the relieved Officers being present._ _2. The condition imposed by this rule that both the relieving and the relieved Officers must be present is not enforced in the case of Officers who are permitted to combine vacation or gazetted holidays with leave._ _(a) When they are prefixed to leave the outgoing Officer will report, before leaving headquarters, or if for urgent reasons the leave is granted during vacation, or holidays, as soon as it is granted that he makes over charge with effect from the end of the vacation or holidays. The relieving Officer will then take over charge at the end of the vacation or holidays in the ordinary way._ _(b) When they are affixed to leave the Officer to be relieved will make over charge in the ordinary way before the vacation or holidays, the incoming Officer on return at the end of the vacation or holidays, taking over charge with effect from the beginning of the vacation or holidays._ _3. The headquarters of any other Officer is either the station which has been declared to be his headquarters by the authority which appoints him, or, in the absence of such declaration, the station where the records of his office are kept."_ 15. At the outset, it is brought to our notice by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB that the provisions contained in the Kerala Service Rules (KSR) have been adopted to regulate the service conditions of the employees of the Kerala State Electricity Board only on the basis of an executive decision by way of a resolution taken by the Board of Directors of the KSEB and that therefore, it is urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB that even though KSR may be a statutory rule in its application to government servants, W.A. No. 137 of 2022 15 its applicability to regulate the service conditions of employees of the respondent KSEB can be taken only as an executive guidelines. The law in that regard is no longer _res integra_ and is covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the celebrated case in _**Jacob v. Kerala Water Authority [1990 (2) KLT 673, paras 14 & 15]**_ , wherein it has been held that the provisions in KS & SSR was adopted by the Kerala Water Authority by way of a resolution of the Board of Directors of the Kerala Water Authority, and therefore the applicability of said rule as regards the employees of the Kerala Water Authority cannot to be stated to be statutory in nature, and the same can be treated only as an executive guideline. That apart, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB has also pointed out that the exceptions carved out in both Clause 1 of Appendix III as well as Clause 2 of Appendix III will apply in the instant case. It is pointed out that the impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order is a general transfer order involving transfer of about 478 employees of the KSEB and it has been specifically ordered therein on the last page thereof as follows: " _1. The order is issued in exigency of service and in public interest. 2. The transferees may be relieved forthwith._ _3. XXX XXX XXX_ _4. XXX XXX XXX_ W.A. No. 137 of 2022 16 On the basis of recitals in Ext.P-5 transfer order, it is urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB that Ext.P-5 transfer order is issued in public interest and a specific direction has been issued that all the transferees concerned may be relieved forthwith and therefore, the exception carved out in Clause 1 of Appendix III would apply. 16. Per contra, Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel appearing for the writ appellant would point out that mere recital of the words public interest may not suffice, and that Clause 1 of Appendix III to Part I KSR mandates that the exception would come into play only if special recorded reasons in view of public nature must be available and therefore, it is necessary that special reasons must be recorded in writing disclosing the public nature which justifies the said exception. 17. After hearing both sides, we are now concerned as to whether the impugned transfer order at Ext.P-5 and the conditions stated above would attract the exception carved out in Clause 1 of Appendix III to Part I KSR. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that since, Ext.P-5 is a general transfer order in the matter of transferring of 478 employees of respondent KSEB and since, the competent authority of the respondent KSEB has stated that the said transfer order has been issued in public interest and in exigencies of service, and as there are no W.A. No. 137 of 2022 17 reasons to dispel the said stand of the respondent KSEB, it has to be held that the abovesaid general transfer order involving transfer of 478 employees has been issued by the Board in public interest and exigencies of service. Moreover, the counter affidavit of the respondents has clearly stated as to how the norms at Ext.P-4 have been worked out, more particularly, in the matter of grant of index marks in terms of Clauses 9 & 16 and about publication of said index marks of various employees including the appellant in the official website of the respondent KSEB. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the firm view that Ext.P-5 transfer order is issued in public interest. We take note of the fact that about 478 employees are covered by Ext.P-5 transfer order, and in such a case there may not be any necessity to recite special reasons for justifying each such transfer. We are confining our observations and findings only to the facts of the case. There could be exceptions to this where a few employees or a single employee has been ordered to be transferred out and in such case, the issue is as to whether specially recorded reasons should be available, etc need not be decided in the facts of this case. So it is left open to be decided and considered in appropriate cases. 18. Further, we see that condition No.2 quoted above specially W.A. No. 137 of 2022 18 orders that the transferees may be relieved immediately. So, the cumulative effect of conditions 1 & 2 of Ext.P-5 is that in the facts and circumstances of this particular case involving the transfer of the appellant, the exception carved out in Clause 1 of Appendix III to Part I KSR is satisfied. Therefore, in such a situation, both the relieving officer and the relieved officer need not be present simultaneously for effectuation of the relieving process, for working out the transfer order. Admittedly, even going by the case of the appellant, he was on leave on 21.12.2021 and the records maintained by the respondent KSEB would show that the 5[th] respondent had taken charge in the said post on 21.12.2021. 19. As regards Clause 2 of Appendix III, the learned Standing Counsel for the KSEB would point out that since, the appellant was admittedly on leave on 21.12.2021, the exception carved out in Clause 2 would also be available in the instant case and therefore, there is no necessity for both the relieving officer and the relieved officer to be present for effectuating the relieving process. 20. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would point out that the exception carved out in Clause 2 can be worked out only in cases where the officers are permitted to combine vacation or W.A. No. 137 of 2022 19 gazetted holidays with leave and that ordinarily, the same would apply for only in departments enjoying vacation, which is not attracted in the instant case, and hence, the exception carved out in Clause 2 of Appendix III is not available in the instant case. 21. We need not get into that issue as we have already held that the exception carved out in Clause 1 would be available in the instant case. The upshot of above discussion is that the learned Single Judge is right in holding that the process of assuming of charge by the 5[th] respondent, in pursuance of impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order in the post previously held by the appellant, is lawful. We have made these findings and observations only because we are constrained to decide this issue, though it is emanating from an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge. We make it clear that the learned Single Judge may decide the main issue regarding the legality and correctness of the impugned transfer order to the extent it relates to the appellant untrammelled and uninfluenced in any manner by our observations and findings as above. 22. Further, we are of the view that in a case where 2 incumbents are continuing as against single sanctioned post in a given station, then the said situation is quite anomalous and would go against the very W.A. No. 137 of 2022 20 scheme of things made out in other provisions of KSR like Rule 23 of Part I KSR, the operative portion of which reads as follows: _"_ _**23.** (a) Subject to any exceptions specifically made in these rules, an Officer shall begin to draw the pay and allowances attached to his tenure of a post with effect from the date he assumes the duties of that post, and shall cease to draw them as soon as he ceases to discharge those duties. If the charge is transferred afternoon, the transfer does not affect pay and allowances until the next day."_ 23. Hence, while dealing with issues of such interlocutory arrangement, a writ court will have to exercise its discretion in a sound and proper manner so that the abovesaid aspects should also be borne in mind to ensure that unnecessary confusion is not created by permitting 2 incumbents to continue in the same station as against a single sanctioned post. 24. We make it clear that the only point we have decided is as to the correctness or otherwise of the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge in ordering to vacate the earlier conditional interim order. We have only held that the process of assumption of charge by the 5[th] respondent is lawful. However, in the interest of justice it is ordered that the disciplinary action taken or proposed to be taken against the appellant for having signed the attendance register on 21.12.2021 will stand dropped and rescinded. W.A. No. 137 of 2022 21 25. Both sides submit that they are fully prepared for the final disposal of the main matter in the WP(C). We make it clear that the appellant will be at liberty to join in the transferred station at Kodenchery, Kozhikode district in pursuance of impugned Ext.P-5 transfer order, without prejudice to his contentions in the WP(C). We would respectfully request the learned Single Judge to facilitate the early final disposal of the main W.P(C). 26. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that this Court may also order that sufficient joining time may be granted to the appellant. On being queried, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent KSEB would point out that ordinarily by the norms, the joining time is one week from the date of receipt of transfer order. Since, said period is over and in view of the interim orders earlier passed by this Court and in the interest of justice, it is ordered that the appellant may join in the transferred post within one week from today. For that purpose, the appellant may not wait for the copy of the judgment of this Writ Appeal, and will have to forthwith join in the transferred station without any further delay. 27. While we fully uphold the main conclusion of the learned Single Judge as per the impugned order, we also make slight W.A. No. 137 of 2022 22 modifications as above. With these observations and directions, the above Writ Appeal will stand dismissed. Sd/ALEXANDER THOMAS, JUDGE Sd/VIJU ABRAHAM, JUDGE MMG