High Court Kerala High Court

Mani.K.K. vs Kerala State Housing Board on 14 September, 2010

Kerala High Court
Mani.K.K. vs Kerala State Housing Board on 14 September, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26297 of 2010(J)


1. MANI.K.K., PUMP OPERATOR,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. KERALA STATE HOUSING BOARD,
                       ...       Respondent

2. REGIONAL ENGINEER,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :14/09/2010

 O R D E R
                             S. Siri Jagan, J.
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
                       W.P(C) No. 26297 of 2010
               =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
            Dated this, the 14th day of September, 2010.

                            J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a pump operator in the 1st

respondent’s establishment, having joined service on 14-2-1977 as a

temporary peon-cum-watchman. He was appointed as a temporary

pump operator on 24.4.1979. He claimed regularization of his

service and by Ext. P1 judgment, this Court directed the 1st

respondent to consider the petitioner for appointment as a last grade

employee. But, the 1st respondent appointed the petitioner as a pump

operator by converting one post of last grade employee as that of

pump operator. The petitioner submits that in spite of the same, the

petitioner is being paid salary only in the scale applicable to last

grade employees instead of the scale of pay applicable to pump

operators.

2. The post of Assistant Grade II is available for last grade

employees for appointment by transfer. Since the petitioner is being

paid salary in the scale of pay of last grade employees, the petitioner

applied for appointment by transfer to the post of Assistant Grade II.

That application was rejected on the ground that the petitioner is a

Pump Operator. According to the petitioner, the respondents cannot

blow hot and cold. Therefore, the petitioner has filed Ext. P5

representation in the matter. For the present, the petitioner would

be satisfied with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and pass

orders on Ext. P5 expeditiously.

3. I have heard the learned standing counsel for the Housing

Board also.

Having heard both sides, I dispose of this writ petition with a

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

W.P.C. No. 26297/10 -: 2 :-

as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an

opportunity of being heard to the petitioner.

Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.

Tds/

[TRUE COPY]

P.S TO JUDGE.