The Principal Secretary To … vs A.R.Pradeed Kumar on 31 October, 2007

Kerala High Court
The Principal Secretary To … vs A.R.Pradeed Kumar on 31 October, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

RP No. 686 of 2004(J)


1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT,

                        Vs



1. A.R.PRADEED KUMAR, ASSISTANT DEVELOPMENT
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J.

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :31/10/2007

 O R D E R
                             V. GIRI ,J.
                    -------------------------------
                        R.P.NO.686 of 2004
                   ---------------------------------
            Dated this the 31st day of October, 2007

                             JUDGMENT

The writ petitioner, while working as a Senior Grade Assistant

in the General Administration Department was appointed as a Block

Development Officer in the Rural Development Department. He

joined duty on 14.10.1993. On 19/2/1998, the petitioner sought for

re-patriation to the parent department. When he submitted Ext.P4,

the petitioner was not yet confirmed as Block Development Officer

in the Rural Development Department. Thereafter the petitioner

submitted Ext.P6 representation claiming the benefit of the Full

Bench decision of this Court in Balakrishnan Nair v Ram Mohan

Nair (1998(1) KLT 766). The petitioner was then told that the

Supreme Court had granted an order of status quo in the special

leave petition against the aforementioned judgment. Subsequently

the decision of the Full Bench was affirmed by the Supreme Court

in Ali v State of Kerala (2003(2) KLT 922). Thereupon the

petitioner renewed his request for re-patriation back to the parent

department as Ext.P8.

2. The writ petition was filed for a direction that the petitioner

be repatriated to his parent department on the basis of Ext.P8.

R.P.NO.686 of 2004 2

When the writ petition came up for admission, it seems that the

Government Pleader had submitted that follow up action will be

taken on Ext.P8. There is a controversy as to whether the

government pleader had also undertaken that the petitioner will be

accommodated in the parent department without delay. Review

petition is filed in relation to the submission of the government

pleader to the effect that the petitioner will be accommodated in

the parent department.

3. It may also be necessary in this context to refer to certain

events which took place subsequent to the judgment which is

sought to be reviewed during the pendency of the review petition.

The Commissioner of Rural Development proceeded to pass

Annexure-R1 order (produced by the writ petitioner along with the

counter affidavit) on 15.10.2005 (review petition is presented on

7.9.2004) by which 273 Block Development officers including the

original petitioner was confirmed in the post of Block Development

Officers. Some of them challenged Annexure-R1 order in W.P.(C)

23343/2004. The contention was that those persons who are listed

in Ext.R1(a) had not completed their probation in the post of Block

Development Officers and therefore they could not have been

R.P.NO.686 of 2004 3

confirmed in the said post. This Court accepted the contention and

by judgment dated 13.7.2007, set aside the order, insofar as it

affected the petitioners therein and held that the petitioners therein

are liable to be repatriated to the Administrative Secretariat.

4. I heard the learned government pleader and the learned

counsel for the writ petitioner. It may be true that when the writ

petition came up for admission the government pleader only

submitted that Ext.P8 will be considered and appropriate action will

be taken. It may not have been open to the government pleader to

give an undertaking, when the writ petition had only come up for

admission, that the writ petitioner will actually be repatriated to the

parent department. I find no reason not to accept the case put

forward in the review petition. In the circumstances, the judgment

dated 9.3.2004 in W.P.(C)8080/2004 is reviewed and the writ

petition is restored to file.

V. GIRI, JUDGE

css/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *