IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 624 of 2008()
1. DR.S.SREEKUMAR, VETERINARY OFFICER (CMP)
... Petitioner
2. DR.SREEKALA V., VETERINARY OFFICER(CMP)
3. DR.SATHEESH K.N., MANAGER (P & I),
4. DR.P.MURALI, VETERINARY OFFICER (CMP)
5. DR.GEE GEORGE, VETERINARY OFFICER (P&I)
6. DR.VENUGOPAL V.S., VETERINARY OFFICER,
7. DR.SHIBU SHANKAR, VETERINARY OFFICER
8. DR.RAJKUMAR SAMUEL, VETERINARY
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
3. BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4. THE DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.K.ANAND (A.201)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :18/03/2010
O R D E R
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
----------------------------------------------
W.A. No.624 of 2008
----------------------------------------------
Dated 18th March, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellants are some of the writ petitioners. They
are Veterinary Doctors working under the third respondent.
When the third respondent discontinued the payment of non-
practising allowance to them, they approached this Court and as
per the direction of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment, the
Government considered the matter and issued Ext.P6 order,
directing that the non-practising allowance could be withdrawn, if
only there is a change in the nature of duty, or the incumbents
concerned are promoted to higher posts. In the light of that, the
third respondent took the consequential decision, Ext.P8.
Challenging Ext.P8 and praying for restoration of non-practising
allowance, the Writ Petition was filed.
2. At the time of hearing of the Writ Petition, we
notice that only one contention was pressed by the writ
petitioners. They submitted that the nature of their duty has not
changed and therefore, the discontinuance of non-practising
allowance was unjustified. Since it was a dispute between a
Cooperative Society and its employees, the learned Single Judge
WA NO.624/08 2
directed the writ petitioners to move the 4th respondent, Director
of Dairy Development, who is vested with the powers of the
Registrar, under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act.
Challenging the said judgment, this Writ Appeal is preferred.
3. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. We
notice that Ext.P6 order was not specifically challenged in the
Writ Petition, though some grounds, attacking the same have
been pleaded. As long as Ext.P6 remains in force, there is
nothing wrong with Ext.P8, which is only a consequential decision
taken by the 4th respondent. Further, even assuming Ext.P6 was
under challenge in the Writ Petition, only one point was
canvassed before the learned Single Judge and the learned Judge
dealt with it appropriately. The point canvassed, being a
disputed question, the appellants were directed to move the
officer, exercising the powers of the Registrar. So, we find no
reason to interfere with the said direction in the judgment under
appeal. The Writ Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE.
tgs
WA NO.624/08 3
K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ.
———————————————-
W.A. No.624 of 2008
———————————————-
J U D G M E N T
Dated 18th March, 2010.