IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 23413 of 2007(K)
1. DR. M.SREEKALA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS,
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, KOLLAM.
4. GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI,
For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :31/07/2007
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN,J
================
W.P.(C).No.23413 of 2007
======================
Dated this the 31st day of July 2007
JUDGMENT
The Petitioner claims to be the dependent of a Military
Personnel who is eligible for service benefits as stipulated in
Ext.P1 guidelines issued by the Government. The petitioner’s
grievance is that disregarding her claim under Ext.P1, which
contemplated transfer to a station of petitioner’s choice, Ext.P5
order has been passed without giving her transfer as requested
for. The petitioner also points out that in Ext.P3 list prepared by
the 2nd respondent, petitioner’s claim was duly noted and
recognised. Petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation in this
matter, which has not been taken in to account while passing
Ext.P5 order. The contention is that although the petitioner was
entitled to be transferred to Kollam, the 4th respondent has been
preferred for that station. The petitioner therefore, seeks the
following reliefs:
i) “call for the records leading to Ext.P5 proceedings, and quash
the same to the extent it relates to the transfer of 4th
respondent to Kollam District, by the issue or a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or
order.
W.P.(C).No.23413/2007
:2:
ii)Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
direction or order directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to grant
the benefits available to dependents of military personnel to
the petitioner and to transfer her from Malappuram District to
Kollam district, at once.”
The learned Government Pleader would submit that it is
doubtful as to whether petitioner’s brother is a Jawan and as to
whether the petitioner is entitled to benefits of Ext.P1. The
learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents 1
to 3 cannot take such a contention in view of Ext.P3 in which
petitioner’s name has been duly noted. After having heard the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader, I
feel that the second respondent should consider the claim of the
petitioner in the light of Exts.P1 and P3. This shall be done with
notice to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent within a
period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
dvs