IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 32512 of 2009(H)
1. N.GOPI, THAYYIL VEEDU, CHITTUR,
... Petitioner
2. SOMARAJAN R., NEDEMTHARAYIL,
3. A.SALAHUDEEN, KOCHUVILA PARAMBIL,
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS
3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE
For Petitioner :SRI.P.I.DAVIS
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/11/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
------------------
WP(C) No.32512 of 2009
Dated,-------------------------- 2009
this the 13th day of November,
------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
The petitioners claim to be seasonal ferrymen. They retired
from service on 31/12/2003, 30/04/2004 & 31/12/2007
respectively.
2. Ext.P1 series are their pension verification report and it
is their grievance that their entire service has not been reckoned.
According to the petitioners, going by Ext.P2 Government Order,
their total service is liable to be reckoned and that in a similar case,
such benefit has also been given. They are relying on Exts.P3 & P4
in support of this contention. The petitioners state that by Exts.P5
(a), P5(b) & P5(c), they have already approached the 2nd respondent
requesting to reckon their entire service relying on Exts.P2 to P4.
3. Having regard to the pendency of the aforesaid
representations before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd
respondent to consider Exts.P5(a), P5(b) & P5(c) representations
filed by the petitioners duly adverting to Exts.P2, P3 & P4 referred to
WP(C) No.32512/2009
-2-
above. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditious as possible,
at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition.
It is directed that on consideration, if the 2nd respondent finds
merit in the claim raised by the petitioners, he shall make necessary
proposal to the 3rd respondent.
This writ petition is disposed of as above.
(ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE)
jg