IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5004 of 2010(A)
1. SOMINI UDAYAN, W/O.UDAYAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE POST MASTER GENERAL,
... Respondent
2. THE SUB POST MASTER,
3. THE DIRECTOR,
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF
5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.RAMESH BABU
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI
The Hon'ble MR. Justice T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
Dated :24/02/2010
O R D E R
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.
------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the refusal of the
second respondent to receive the deposits made by her under
the Mahila Pradan Khatriyas Bachana Yojna under the National
Savings Scheme. The petitioner is a Mahila Pradan Agent in the
department of National Savings at Sub Post Office, Valakam in
Kollam. Ext.P1 is the copy of the memo and proceedings by the
Block Development Officer in the matter. Ext.P2 is the copy of
the agreement executed. According to the petitioner,
appointment was renewed from time to time and now the period
of appointment stands valid up to 9/5/2012. The petitioner
dutifully is collecting money from depositors and is remitting the
same in the concerned post office namely the Sub Post Office,
Valakam without fail. According to the petitioner the present
officer has denied the facility to remit the amount in the account.
It is in these circumstances, this writ petition has been filed.
2. A statement has been filed on behalf of the
respondents. It is mainly contended that various irregularities in
the account have been detected. There were several complaints
W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010
2
against the petitioner which was received by the second
respondent and detailed enquiry was made in respect of the said
cases.
3. In paragraph ‘6 ‘ it is stated that the irregularities
were reported by second respondent to the Block Development
Officer Vettikkavala Kottarakkara the appointing authority with a
request to take appropriate decision and since no action is being
taken against the petitioner it was decided not to accept any
deposits from the petitioner until further orders as per letter
dated 29/1/2010 produced as Ext.R2(c). It is further stated in
paragraph ‘6’ that on receipt of the request from the petitioner
to accept the amount already collected from the depositors, her
case was reconsidered and on 15/2/2010 the second respondent
was again directed to accept the deposits from the petitioner
until receipt of direction from the fifth respondent in order to
avoid public complaints.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the appointment is one made by the Block Development Officer
and agreement is also executed with the Block Development
Officer. Therefore, it is up to the Block Development Officer to
W.P.(C)No.5004 of 2010
3
take a decision in the matter as it is indicated in the statement.
The present arrangements will continue till orders are passed by
the Block Development Officer in the matter. The petitioner will
produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this
judgment before the fifth respondent.
The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE
skj