High Court Kerala High Court

P.G.Sivan vs The Secretary To Government on 14 August, 2007

Kerala High Court
P.G.Sivan vs The Secretary To Government on 14 August, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 16545 of 2007(T)


1. P.G.SIVAN, MANAGER GRADE I (HG),
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.C.VARGHESE, MANAGER GRADE I (HG),

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, PARK VIEW,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.C.JOHN

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :14/08/2007

 O R D E R
                       Antony Dominic, J.
             ========================
                   W.P(C).No.16545 of 2007
             ========================

           Dated this the 14th day of August, 2007.

                            JUDGMENT

Complaint of the petitioners is regarding the rank and

seniority assigned to them in the category of Manager Grade I in

the Tourism Department. It is stated that they ought to have

been given promotion with effect from the date of occurrence of

vacancy and that in view of the delay to convene the D.P.C.,

promotion was also delayed, which has adversely affected their

career. Petitioners make reference to Exts.P5, P6 and P7. In

Ext.P5 it is seen that the Director has recommended their case

for giving retrospective effect to their promotion and according to

them, Exts.P6 and P7 show that similar requests have been

accepted. Exts.P2, P4 and P8 are representations made by the

petitioners claiming retrospective effect to their promotion and

these representations are pending before the first respondent.

2. Taking into account the recommendation that is made by

the Director in Ext.P5 and the benefit that is given to others by

WP(C) 16545/07 -: 2 :-

Exts.P6 and P7, I direct the first respondent to consider the claim

of the petitioners evidenced by Exts.P2, P4 and P8, and pass

orders thereon in the light of Exts.P5 to P7 as expeditiously as

possible. In the process, if any other persons’ rights are likely to

be prejudicially affected, such persons should also be put on

notice and heard along with the petitioners. Such exercise shall

be completed within a period of two months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

Writ Petition is disposed of as above. Petitioners are

directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the first

respondent for compliance.

Antony Dominic,
Judge.

ess 14/8