High Court Kerala High Court

C.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2010

Kerala High Court
C.Ramachandran vs State Of Kerala on 9 November, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 33722 of 2010(M)


1. C.RAMACHANDRAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. K.RAVINDRAN ACHARY,HEAD ACCOUNTANT,
3. K.R.PRADEEPAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT,
4. V.N.PRAKASAN, HEAD ACCOUNTANT,

                        Vs



1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :09/11/2010

 O R D E R
                             S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P(C) No. 33722 of 2010
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
             Dated this, the 9th day of November, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioners belong to the category of ministerial staff in the

Social Welfare Department of the Government of Kerala. They are

aggrieved by Ext. P3 Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare

Service and Ext. P4 Special Rules for the Kerala Social Welfare

Subordinate Service. According to the petitioners, the said Special

Rules are unconstitutional to the extent they do not provide for any

promotional avenues for male ministerial staff in the Department.

Airing their grievances, they have filed Ext. P5 representation before

the 1st respondent. For the present, they would be satisfied with a

direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext. P5

expeditiously.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

3. If the allegation of the petitioners that no promotional

avenues are provided for male ministerial staff in the Special Rulesm

is true, I am of opinion that the petitioners have a prima facie case

of arbitrariness and discrimination against the special rules. It is

settled law that it is the duty of the State to provide for promotional

avenues to Government employees. If Special Rules are framed,

which do not provide for promotional avenues for a particular section

of employees alone, the petitioners can certainly make out a prima

facie case of arbitrarinesses and discrimination. I am of opinion that

this aspect has to be considered by the Government in detail.

In the above circumstances, I dispose of tis writ petition with a

direction to the 1st respondent to consider the grievances of the

petitioners detailed in Ext. P 5 and take a final decision on the same

W.P.C. No. 33722/2010 -: 2 :-

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.