High Court Kerala High Court

Vinod Kumar.M vs The Chief Engineer on 23 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
Vinod Kumar.M vs The Chief Engineer on 23 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 22133 of 2008(I)


1. VINOD KUMAR.M, 3RD GRADE OVERSEER,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, L.S.G DEPARTMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER,

3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (ADMN.),

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.POLY MATHAI

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :23/07/2008

 O R D E R
                          V.GIRI, J
                        -------------------
                    W.P.(C).22133/2008
                        --------------------
            Dated this the 23rd day of July, 2008

                        JUDGMENT

Petitioner, a 3rd Grade Overseer in the Public Works

Department, was deployed to the LSGD by order dated

31.12.2004. Deployment was originally for a period of

three years. But petitioner continues on deployment

even now. An Engineering Cadre was set up in the LSGD

by the Government. Options were sought for. But the

petitioner did not opt for the same. In fact he filed Ext.P2

representation before the Chief Engineer, PWD

(Administration), seeking cancellation of his deployment

and repatriation to the parent department. Orders are yet

to be passed thereon.

2. In the meanwhile, under Ext.P4 order, petitioner has

been transferred to the Balussery Panangad Grama

Panchayat. Petitioner is aggrieved that his request for

cancellation of deployment has not been considered. But

he continues to be treated as deployed in the LSGD and

he is even transferred to another station also. Petitioner

W.P.(C).22133/2008
2

submits that the statement in Ext.P5, to the extent to

which it says that the petitioner’s transfer is also on a

request, is a wrong statement of fact. Petitioner has

submitted Ext.P5 before the first respondent, the Chief

Engineer, in the LSG Department and the same is

pending consideration.

3. Having heard learned counsel on both sides, writ

petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i). Third respondent shall consider the

petitioner’s request under Ext.P2 and take

a decision thereon, within a period of six

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

(ii). Once such an order is passed, it shall

be communicated to the first respondent

and first respondent shall proceed to pass

orders on Ext.P5 on the basis of the decision

taken by the third respondent on Ext.P2.

(iii). On receipt of the decision taken by the

W.P.(C).22133/2008
3

third respondent, first respondent shall,

within two weeks thereafter, take a decision

on Ext.P5.

(iv). If the petitioner has not been relieved

as on date pursuant to Ext.P4, he shall be

permitted to be retained in the same station,

until a decision is taken by the first

respondent as aforementioned.

V.GIRI,
Judge

mrcs