IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 3550 of 2009(V)
1. SATHI MUKUNDAN, CHAIRPERSON,COMMUNITY
... Petitioner
2. VASANTHI KRISHNAKUTTY, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),
3. RADHAMMA SUDHAKARAN, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),
4. SABITHA SURESH, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),
5. OMANA SATHEESH, CHAIRPERSON (CDS),
6. LIZY ACHENKUNJU, CHAIRPERSON (CDS),
7. SAROJINI RAJAN, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),
8. INDIRAKUTTY AMMA, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),
9. MANJU.S, CHAIRPERSON(CDS),ENADIMANGALAM
Vs
1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LOCAL SELF
... Respondent
2. SECRETARY,AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT,
3. DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE,VIKAS BHAVAN,
4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE POVERTY
5. C.RAMACHANDRAN PILLAI, MEMBER SECRETARY/
For Petitioner :SRI.N.RAGHURAJ
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :03/02/2009
O R D E R
S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.3550 OF 2009
----------------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2009
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are Chairpersons of the Community
Development Societies under the State Level Poverty Eradication
Mission commonly known as ‘Kudumbhashree’ in Pathanamthitta
District. The ‘ Kudumbhashree’ is implementing a project to
develop production of honey, among the members of the
‘Kudumbhashree’ in the Pathanamthitta District which is called
‘Madhuram’ project. The 5th respondent, who is an Agricultural
Officer, was appointed as the District Coordinator/Member
Secretary of ‘Madhuram’ project on deputation. According to the
petitioners, he has been doing commendable job in promoting the
project. As such, he is an indispensable part of the project itself.
Realising his importance to the project, respondents 1 to 3
themselves extended the period of deputation of the 5th
respondent. However, that extended period also has expired in
W.P.(c)No.3550/09 2
December 2008. However, he is still continuing as
Coordinator. The petitioners apprehend that respondents 1 to
3 may not extend the period of deputation which according to
the petitioners would harm the project seriously. Therefore,
the petitioners seek extension of the deputation period of the
5th respondent until the ‘Madhuram’ project is at least
stablised. The petitioners have filed Exts.P1 and P2
representations before respondents 1 and 2 seeking the
above relief. The petitioners seek a direction to respondents 1
and 2 to consider Exts.P1 and P2 appropriately.
2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am
inclined to direct respondents 1 and 2 to consider and pass
orders on Exts.P1 and P2. Since the decision to extend the
deputation period of the 5th respondent has to be taken both
by respondents 1 and 2, it is only appropriate that respondents
1 and 2 together consider Exts.P1 and P2 expeditiously.
In the above circumstances, I direct that respondents 1
and 2 shall together consider Exts.P1 and P2 representations
and pass appropriate orders regarding extension of deputation
W.P.(c)No.3550/09 3
period of the 5th respondent as expeditiously as possible, at
any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a copy of this judgment. Till orders are so passed, the 5th
respondent shall not be relieved from deputation.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
Acd
W.P.(c)No.3550/09 4