The petitioner assails Exhibit P11 transfer order as being mala fide and without any public interest or administrative exigency. 2. The facts in brief are that, the petitioner, who joined the service of the respondent Corporation as Conductor in 2000, has been subjected to frequent transfers and most of the time, he is said to have worked outside his home station. Eventually in 2012, he was promoted as Vehicle Supervisor and posted in Thrissur Depot. Later, in 2013, the petitioner was transferred to Angamaly, where he reported for duty on 19.07.2013. Five months later, he was transferred through Exhibit P3 to Karunagappally. Having absented himself from 09.03.2014 to 09.07.2014, owing to his ill-health, the petitioner reported back to duty, having in his support Exhibits P4 and P5 medical certificates showing that he had suffered coronary heart disease and that he took medical treatment as an inpatient. To get re-admitted to duty, the petitioner is said to have made Exhibits P6 and P8 representations. Eventually the petitioner, through Exhibit P3, was admitted to duty at Karunagappally and later, through Exhibit P11 transferred to Kottarakkara.
3. Laying serious challenge against Exhibit P11 transfer order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted extensive arguments against what is said to be illegal and unjustifiable transfer, especially as a mode of punishment, notwithstanding his precarious health condition. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel has made valiant efforts to repel the contentions.
4. Eventually when this Court decided to adjudicate the issue on merits, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that instead of deciding the issue on merits, this Court may direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's case sympathetically, given his health condition, which has amply been established through numerous medical certificates produced by the petitioner, apart from his representations, which have already been referred to above.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, this Court, without adverting to the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the first and second respondents to consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view his ill-health and take appropriate decision concerning his request to be transferred to Kothamangalm, his home depot. If needed, the petitioner may submit a comprehensive representation to the respondent authorities placing the facts and circumstances under which he seeks transfer. The consideration of the representation shall be within one month from the date of receipt of such representation. No order as to costs.
Dama Seshadri Naidu, Judge tkv