C SAJI THOMAS Vs. CHIEF ENGINEER HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD VYDYUTHI BHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is presently working as a Senior Assistant in the office of the 2nd respondent. At the time of last general transfer, he was transferred to Electrical Division Office at Pallom. He submitted an option for transfer to Electrical Circle, Palai, which is near to his native place during the general transfer, since he had completed his normal tenure at Pallom. He also wanted to continue his studies for LL.B evening course in the M.G. University Kottayam. By Ext.P1 general transfer for 2011 was ordered, in which, he was included as serial No.238 for transfer to Vadakara in Kozhikode and 243 for transfer to Palai. The Executive Engineer Pallom relived the petitioner on 26.7.2011 to join the duty at Palai. But when the petitioner reported for joining duty at Palai on 28.7.2011, the Deputy Chief Engineer, Electrical Circle, Palai, did not permit the petitioner to join duty on the ground that the 1st respondent had given a telephonic message to the effect that the petitioner's transfer to Palai has been cancelled. The petitioner requested for an alternative posting order. No orders were issued. Therefore the petitioner filed W.P.(C).No. 22381/2011, which was disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment. In compliance with the direction in the judgment, the 1st respondent issued Ext.P5 order dated 15.9.2011 posting the petitioner at Transmission Circle office, Poovanthuruthu. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner joined duty on 16.9.2011. But in the meanwhile, from 27.7.211 to 15.9.2011, the petitioner had no place of posting and he was therefore absenting from duty. The petitioner filed a representation seeking regularization of the period of absence as duty with pay. But the 1st respondent issued Ext.P9 order directing that the period be regularised as eligible leave. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) A statement has been filed on behalf of the 1st respondent. They have explained the circumstances under which the situation arose. But the learned Standing Counsel could not satisfy me that the situation which arose is of the petitioner's making. There is no fault on the part of the petitioner in the matter.