IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 22219 of 2010(B)
1. PRAKASHA.K,S/O.DERANNASHETTY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,COLLECTOR'S OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT OFFICER,SOCIAL WELFARE
3. GENERAL MANAGER,KASARAGOD DISTRICT
For Petitioner :SRI.M.S.IMTHIYAZ AHAMMED
For Respondent :SRI.M.SASINDRAN,SC,KASARGOD DIST.CO.BAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C)No.22219 of 2010
----------------------------
Dated 13th September, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is a person having 50% permanent
disablement. He has submitted Ext.P4 representation before the third
respondent. The contention of the petitioner is that he had been working
under the third respondent Bank from 2.8.1999 to 27.1.2000 and by
virtue of the said service, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to get
the benefit of Ext.P3 Government order. He has taken up such
contention in Ext.P4 representation. In the body of the writ petition
Ext.P4 representation has been described as the representation
submitted by the petitioner on 19.9.2007 whilst what is produced as
Ext.P4 is the copy of the representation submitted on 6.3.2010. That
apart, Exts.P4 and P5 are virtually the same representation. It is
alleging inordinate delay in the matter of disposal of Exts.P4 and Ext.P5
representations that this writ petition has been filed. The contention of
the petitioner is that he had been in the service of the third respondent
Bank between 2.8.1999 and 27.1.2000. Evidently, Ext.P3 Government
order provides certain benefits in respect of persons who have put in
service between 15.8.1998 and 15.8.1999. As noticed hereinbefore, the
contention of the petitioner is that he had submitted a representation on
WP(C).No.22219/2010 2
19.9.2007. In case, such a representation has been received from the
petitioner, the third respondent shall take up the same for consideration.
At any rate, Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner requires a
consideration by the third respondent. In the circumstances, without
making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the
petitioner in this writ petition, it is disposed of with a direction to the
third respondent to consider and pass orders on the representation
submitted by the petitioner on 19.9.2007. In case of its non-receipt
Ext.P4 shall be considered by the third respondent. While considering the
claim the third respondent shall look into Ext.P3 Government order as
well. A decision based on the aforesaid direction shall be taken by the
third respondent expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS