N.Surendran. Vs. the Conservator of Forests.

N.Surendran. vs The Conservator of Forests.

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Apr 05, 2010

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/916906

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/916906
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: C.T.Ravikumar, J.
Decided On: Apr 05, 2010
Case Number: WP(C).No. 11672 of 2010(H)
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[MR. JUSTICE AJIT J GUNJAL; MR.JUSTICE C.R.KUMARASWAMY, JJ.] This M.F.A is filed under section 173(1) of MV act against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2010 passed in MVC no.797/2008 on the file of the I additional small cause judge and MACT, Bangalore. partly allowing the claim. petition for compensation and see...

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

N.Surendran.

Advocate SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH, Adv.

Respondent

The Conservator of Forests.

Excerpt

[mr. justice ajit j gunjal; mr.justice c.r.kumaraswamy, jj.] this m.f.a is filed under section 173(1) of mv act against the judgment and award dated 08.09.2010 passed in mvc no.797/2008 on the file of the i additional small cause judge and mact, bangalore. partly allowing the claim. petition for compensation and seeking enhancement of compensation......ext.p2, has approached this court raising grievances against his transfer and posting to malappuram district by filing w.p(c) no.11435/2010. the said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the said petitioner to file representation before the competent authority and in turn, the said competent authority was directed to consider and pass orders on his representation. the limited prayer of the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for a transfer and posting at malappuram district may be directed to be considered along with the claim of the said petitioner sri.kasu. 2. it is obvious from the facts expatiated earlier that the grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied a transfer and posting at malappuram district. but, at the same time, the petitioner in w.p(c) no.11435/2010 is having a grievance that ignoring his request for retention in palakkad district itself, he has been ordered to be transferred to malappuram district. 3. in view of the facts obtained in this case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent by filing a detailed representation requesting for a transfer to malappuram district. in case the petitioner files such representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered along with the claim of the petitioner sri.kasu in w.p(c) no.11435/2010, in case the claim of the said petitioner is not already considered and disposed of. till such consideration, the petitioner, if not already relieved, shall be permitted to continue in the present station itself.

Full Judgment

1. The petitioner is a Forester working in the Social Forestry Division, Palakkad. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a direct recruit to the Malappuram district and he has already completed more than five years in Palakkad district. As per Ext.P1, he had submitted an application for transfer to Malappuram district. However, disregarding his genuine request, he has been given a posting in Palakkad district itself. At the same time, persons, who are having more than five years' stay in Malappuram district, are being permitted to continue in Malappuram district itself. That apart, according to the petitioner, one Kasu, who is Sl.No.47 in Ext.P2, has approached this Court raising grievances against his transfer and posting to Malappuram district by filing W.P(C) No.11435/2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the said petitioner to file representation before the competent authority and in turn, the said competent authority was directed to consider and pass orders on his representation. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for a transfer and posting at Malappuram district may be directed to be considered along with the claim of the said petitioner Sri.Kasu.

2. It is obvious from the facts expatiated earlier that the grievance of the petitioner is that he has been denied a transfer and posting at Malappuram district. But, at the same time, the petitioner in W.P(C) No.11435/2010 is having a grievance that ignoring his request for retention in Palakkad district itself, he has been ordered to be transferred to Malappuram district.

3. In view of the facts obtained in this case, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the 1st respondent by filing a detailed representation requesting for a transfer to Malappuram district. In case the petitioner files such representation within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, the same shall be considered along with the claim of the petitioner Sri.Kasu in W.P(C) No.11435/2010, in case the claim of the said petitioner is not already considered and disposed of. Till such consideration, the petitioner, if not already relieved, shall be permitted to continue in the present station itself.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2010 Same Parties N.Surendran. vs The Conservator of Forests. Same Subject Education Same Judge C.T.Ravikumar, J.

Education Competent authority To continue Has been