SMITHA.S v KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV) and others

# **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 15[TH] DAY OF JUNE 2023 / 25TH JYAISHTA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 16458 OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` SMITHA.S AGED 45 YEARS W/O SAILAJITHLAL, RESIDING AT FLAT NO. MF4/217, VRIDAVAN GARDENS, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695004 WORKING AS QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR, CENTRE-IN-CHARGE, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV) BALARAMAPURAM- THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695501 ``` ``` BY ADVS. T.C.KRISHNA P.RAMAKRISHNAN PREETHI RAMAKRISHNAN ASHA K.SHENOY PRATAP ABRAHAM VARGHESE ASHA S.V GOKUL KRISHNA ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV)`** - **`REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, P.M 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670001`** - **`2 MANAGER (ADMINISTRATION) IN CHARGE KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV) P.M 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670001`** ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 2 ``` - **`3 REGIONAL MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV), REGIONAL OFFICE, NEMOM PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695020`** - **`4 REGIONAL MANAGER, KANNUR KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV) P.M 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR, PIN - 670001`** ``` 5GEORGE T.J. QUALITY CONTROL INSPECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (HANVEEV) P.M 32/249, THILLERI ROAD, KANNUR, PIN – 670001 ``` ``` BY ADVS. M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984) JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526) KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003) PAULOSE C. ABRAHAM(MAH/58/2006) RAJA KANNAN(K/356/2008) JAI MOHAN(D/2454/2009) POOJA MENON(K/971/2018) ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15.06.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 15[th] day of June, 2023 The petitioner, who is working as Quality Control Inspector at Balaramapuram Production Centre under the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation, has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside Ext.P2 transfer order to the extent it transfers the petitioner from Balaramapuram Production Centre, Thiruvananthapuram to the Regional Office, Kannur. 2. The petitioner states that the petitioner was posted in the present station on 23.02.2021 and has not completed her tenure. All of a sudden, by Ext.P2 order, the petitioner who is the sole woman employee working in the post of Quality Control Inspector, is transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur, when her juniors, who are less eligible hands, are retained in Thiruvananthapuram. ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 4 ``` 3. The petitioner states that the 5[th] respondent was transferred from Thiruvananthapuram to Kannur in the month of November, 2022. The petitioner is being transferred to Kannur in order to accommodate the 5[th] respondent in Thiruvananthapuram, within four months of his transfer to Kannur. 4. The petitioner would submit that in the Regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram, there are 3 SPSs including the one transferred out from the Punnakkad Production Centre. The transfer is in violation of various provisions of Transfer Guidelines contained in Ext.P1. The transfer is in gross violation of paragraph 6(ii) of Ext.P1 Transfer Guidelines. Ext.P1 stipulates that women employees should not be transferred to distant stations to the extent possible. The petitioner, who is a woman employee, has now been transferred to a station which is 410 Kilometres away. The petitioner’s husband is working in Kerala State Electricity Board at Thiruvananthapuram. As the petitioner’s spouse is ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 5 ``` working in Thiruvananthapuram, for that reason also the petitioner’s request to retain at Thiruvananthapuram should be considered. 5. When this writ petition came up for admission, this Court passed an interim order directing that the petitioner shall be permitted to continue in Balaramapuram, Thiruvananthapuram till 29.05.2023, which interim order was extended subsequently. 6. Standing Counsel entered appearance on behalf of respondents 1 to 4 and resisted the writ petition. The Standing Counsel controverted all the material allegations made by the petitioner in the writ petition. The Standing Counsel submitted that the transfer norms are governed by Ext.R1(a) Guidelines of the 1[st] respondent. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on Ext.P1 is unsustainable. The petitioner does not have a vested right to be retained at Thiruvananthapuram, in view of Ext.R1(a) Guidelines. The petitioner is a person, who is continuing in ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 6 ``` Thiruvananthapuram region for the last 11 years. The petitioner has a history of resisting transfer whenever proposed. Last year also, the petitioner was sought to be transferred to Kannur. The petitioner resisted the same filing a representation and the proposal was then dropped. It is further alleged that in the past, the petitioner has even resisted to go on transfer to Pathanamthitta for seven days for the purpose of annual stock verification requirement. 7. In respect of the transfer of the 5[th] respondent, it is submitted that the 5[th] respondent was transferred to Kannur in the month of November, 2022, as the service of the 5[th] respondent was required at Kannur in view of dearth of technical staff relating to Quality Controller. The 5[th] respondent has a 1.5 year old child, who is medically unfit. The 5[th] respondent therefore sought a re-transfer to Thiruvananthapuram region and accordingly, transfer was granted to him. The petitioner is a person, who is remaining in Thiruvananthapuram region for the last 11 years. Therefore, ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 7 ``` in the interest of administration, the petitioner was transferred to Kannur. 8. The Standing Counsel further submitted that when transfer orders came, the petitioner was holding in charge of Amaravila as well as Balaramapuram Unit. The petitioner relinquished the charge of Amaravila Centre Unit, which was inconvenient to the petitioner and retained Balaramapuram purposefully. 9. The 5[th] respondent has assumed charge at Punnakkad. The 5[th] respondent is expected to take care of Punnakkad as well as Balaramapuram. Now, in view of the interim order passed by this Court, two Quality Control Officers are retained in the same Centre, whereas there is dearth of Quality Control Officers in Kannur. This is causing administrative inconvenience in the Kannur region. 10. The Standing Counsel further pointed out that health and family issues of the employees are to be considered by the employer. There will be multiple claims ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 8 ``` from the employees in this regard. It is for the employer to consider all those aspects and make suitable postings. The petitioner has no right to get a transfer to any particular place or to be retained in any particular place. Transfers and postings are best left to the employer. 11. The Standing Counsel relied on certain judgments in _**State of U.P. and others v. Gobardhan Lal** [(2004) 11 SCC 402],_ _**National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited v. Shri. Bhagwan and another** [AIR 2001 SC 3309],_ _**State Bank of India v. G.K. Deshak** [AIR 1993 SC 2447] and_ _**N.K. Singh v. Union of India and others** [AIR 1994 (6) SCC 98]_ to contemplate the issue. There is no allegation that any statutory rules governing transfers are violated. The petitioner has not made any allegation of _mala fide_ . When transfers are to be made, it will be only in the interest of justice that the matter is left to the employer, who alone can take into consideration the organizational interest. The writ petition is not maintainable and it is liable to the dismissed, asserted the ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 9 ``` Standing Counsel. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Notice to the 5[th] respondent is dispensed with in view of the nature of the relief to be granted in the writ petition. 13. It is to be noted that the petitioner is a woman employee and her husband is working in Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner has two school going children. The petitioner has a specific case that the cadre strength of Regional Office is two posts of Quality Control Inspector and one post of Senior Production Supervisor. The Corporation interchangeably transfers Senior Production Supervisors and Quality Control Inspectors. Now in Thiruvananthapuram Regional Office, there are three Production Supervisors, whereas in Kannur there is no Senior Production Supervisors, but there is a Quality Control Inspector. Therefore, there is no administrative exigency warranting transfer of the petitioner to Kannur. ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ``` 10 ``` 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner’s grievance as raised in Ext.P5 representation requires consideration by the 1[st] respondent. The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the 1[st] respondent-Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation or such other competent authority under the Corporation to consider Ext.P5 representation submitted by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon, within a period of two weeks, if necessary after giving an opportunity of hearing to the 5[th] respondent also. The petitioner will be at liberty to file a supplementary statement within two days. **Sd/-** **N.NAGARESH JUDGE** spk ``` WP(C) No.16458 of 2023 ``` ## **`11`** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16458/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS`** ``` Exhibit P-1 ``` ``` TRUE COPY OF GO (P) NO. 3/2017/P&ARD DATED 25-02-2017 ``` ``` Exhibit P-2TRUE COPY OF ORDER BEARING NO. KSHDC/G2/419/106/2023-2A DATED 17-05- 2023 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Exhibit P-3TRUECOPYOFORDERNO. TR/E1/08/OC/2022-23/794 DATED 14-11- 2022 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT ``` ``` Exhibit P-4TRUE COPY OF THE OFFICE ORDER NO. KSHDC/G2/419/193/2023-24 DATED 30-05- 2023 ``` ``` Exhibit P-5TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 25.05.2023 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT ``` ``` RESPONDENT EXHIBITS EXHIBIT R1(A) ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF THE CORPORATION'S TRANSFER POLICY ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(B)A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 18.02.2022 ``` ``` EXHIBIT R1(C)A TRUE COPY OF THE INTER-OFFICE MEMO NUMBEREDASKSHDC/FIN/766/2021-22 DATED 04.03.2022 EXHIBIT R1(D)A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 10.02.2023 ```