High Court Kerala High Court

M.B.Pushpam vs The Kerala State Deelopment … on 14 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
M.B.Pushpam vs The Kerala State Deelopment … on 14 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 9930 of 2005(F)


1. M.B.PUSHPAM, ASSISTANT GRADE-I,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE KERALA STATE DEELOPMENT CORPORATION,
                       ...       Respondent

2. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE

3. C.DEVAKI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

4. K.VILASINI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

5. BANUMATHI, JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.NARAYANAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/08/2007

 O R D E R
                      Antony Dominic, J.
            ========================
                   W.P(C).No.9930 of 2005
            ========================

           Dated this the 14th day of August, 2007.

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioner entered service in 1981. By Ext.P1 order dated

4.6.1994, along with others petitioner’s service was regularised

with prospective effect. From that point onwards, petitioner has

been requesting that her service may be regularised with

retrospective effect from the date of her initial engagement.

Substantial prayer made in this Writ Petition is to direct the first

respondent to give effect to her regularisation with retrospective

effect from 1981 when she entered service. Petitioner has

produced Ext.P13 representation. Although it was addressed to

the Minister for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it is seen

from Ext.P14 that this has been forwarded to the second

respondent for appropriate action. Complaint of the petitioner is

that Ext.P13 representation has not been disposed of by the

second respondent so far.

2. At the same time, the contesting respondents would

WP(C) 9930/05 -: 2 :-

contend that there was delay and latches. It is pointed out that

the attempt of the petitioner is to unsettle the seniority with

effect from 1981. It is already settled and therefore this Court

should not pass any order in favour of the petitioner.

3. Without entering into merits of the contentions of both

parties, I am inclined to direct the respondents to consider and

dispose of Ext.P13 representation which is now pending before

the said respondent. I clarify that the affected parties including

the contesting respondents shall also be put on notice before any

decision on Ext.P13 is taken and that it is upto the second

respondent to consider the contentions of both parties. Orders on

Ext.P13 shall be passed within four months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

With this direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Antony Dominic,
Judge.

ess 14/8