LAWS(KER)-2017-9-21

ROSAMMA CHERIAN Vs. STATEOF KERALA

Decided On September 11, 2017
Rosamma Cherian Appellant
V/S
Stateof Kerala Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are stated as aggrieved of the order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1753 of 2017, whereby the challenge raised against the transfer ordered as per Annexure A2 was dealt with, relegating the petitioners to move the 2nd respondent by representations, to be considered and finalised in accordance with law, at the same time, directing the 4th respondent to consider whether the applicants could be retained in Kottayam District until final orders are passed on the representations.

(2.) The sum and substance of the case projected by the petitioners before this Court is that, they are working as Junior Public Health Nurse Grade-I in Kottayam District and that, they came to be posted there because of the particular circumstances substantiated before the authorities concerned to have postings in their home stations. However, they came to be shifted as per Annexure A2 order of transfer from Kottayam to Palakkad, which was quite detrimental to the rights and interests of their family atmosphere because of medical and such other reasons. It is also stated that the said order of transfer is contrary to the transfer norms, a copy of which is produced as Annexure A1. This made the petitioners to submit Annexures A4 & A6 before the authorities concerned, seeking for reconsideration of the matter and to retain them in Kottayam District.

(3.) In the case of the first petitioner, serious ailments of her husband, who had undergone a neuro-surgery in the year 2014 and the service rendered by the said petitioner in various Districts like Palakkad, Kasaragode and Thrissur have been highlighted in Annexure A4. In the case of the second petitioner, the service rendered by her in different Districts like Kasaragode, Palakkad, Kozhikode and Thrissur for nearly 24 years and the remaining tenure of just 21/2 years, coupled with such other mitigating circumstances, have been pointed out in Annexure A6. Since the petitioners apprehended immediate shifting, they approached the Tribunal seeking interference with the proceedings.