IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 29522 of 2009(I)
1. P.M.SHAJI
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DY.DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT & ANOTHER
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.P.N.PURUSHOTHAMA KAIMAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :19/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 29522 OF 2009 (I)
=====================
Dated this the 19th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 to the extent, he has been
transferred from Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Office to
Koruthode Grama Panchayat Office. According to the petitioner,
the 3rd respondent, who is at Sl.No.36 in Ext.P2, who was working
in Peruvanthanam Grama Panchayat had requested for a transfer
to Koruthode Grama Panchayat and that the proposal was also to
concede that request. It is stated that, however, without any
rhyme or reason, petitioner, who has only recently joined
Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat Office has now been transferred
by Ext.P2 order. Petitioner submits that complaining of the above
and seeking his retention at Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat, he
has filed Ext.P4 before the 1st respondent. He is also referring to
Ext.P3 request made by the President of the Panchayat itself
requesting for his retention in Mundakkayam Grama Panchayat.
It is stated that Exts.P3 and P4 are pending before the 1st
respondent and therefore petitioner seeks an order requiring the
1st respondent to pass orders on Exts.P3 an P4.
WPC 29522/09
:2 :
Having regard to the pendency of Exts.P3 and P4, this writ
petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to consider and
pass orders thereon. This shall be done, as expeditiously as
possible, at any rate within 3 weeks of production of a copy of this
judgment. However, it is clarified that any order prejudicial to the
2nd respondent shall be passed only with notice to her as well.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp
