Kerala High Court
K.K.Jayaprakash vs State Of Kerala on 25 November, 2010
Bench: J.Chelameswar, P.R.Ramachandra Menon
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 1919 of 2010()
1. K.K.JAYAPRAKASH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.R.K.MURALEEDHARAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.J.CHELAMESWAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
Dated :25/11/2010
O R D E R
J. CHELAMESWAR, C.J. &
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON J.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
W.A. No. 1919 Of 2010
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dated, this the 25th day of November, 2010
JUDGMENT
Ramachandra Menon J.
The appellant, who is the unsuccessful writ petitioner, had approached this Court by filing W.P. (C) No. 25099 of 2010, with the prayer as follows :
"For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, this Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provisionally fix the pay and allowances after sanctioning higher grade, pending disposal of the above writ petition.
2. When the matter came up for admission, the issue projected by the petitioner was considered and interference was declined, holding that, the petitioner was not entitled to get the benefit, in view of the contents of GO(P) 145/06/Fin dated 25.03.2006 (Paragraph - 16) and accordingly, Ext. P4 which was impugned in the Writ Petition was upheld.
3. With regard to the grievance projected before this Court, it is to be noted that, the petitioner entered into service as a 'Forest Guard', on advice by the PSC, w.e.f. 08.03.1999 and the probation was declared in the said department. Subsequently, he was selected as an LD Clerk/Warden in the W.A No. 1919 of 2010 2 ST Development Department, where he joined on 25.08.2003. But, shortly thereafter, the writ petitioner made an application to permit him to come back to the parent department and taking note of the request, the same was granted; more so, when the probation in the S.T. Department was not declared.
4. The case projected by the appellant is that, he is entitled to get the higher grade benefit, since he had completed the requisite number of years for obtaining the said benefit. But, the claim was rejected as per Ext.P4, which in turn was subjected to challenge in the Writ Petition, where interference was declined.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the ground for rejecting the claim, as put forth in Ext. P4 and the reliance sought to be placed by the learned Single Judge on the G.O (P) dated 25.03.2006 is not correct or sustainable, stating that the same is contrary to the mandate under Rule 8 of Part II of KS & SSR. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits that, the appellant's grievance is also liable to be considered by the Government invoking the power under Rule 39 of Part II of the KS & SSR and that the appellant/writ petitioner has already preferred Ext. P5 representation in this regard, through proper channel, which was sought to be referred to the first respondent.
6. Heard the learned Senior Government Pleader as well. W.A No. 1919 of 2010 3
7. Considering the facts and circumstances, we do not propose to go into the merits of the case. The second respondent is directed to forward Ext. P5 representation, to the first respondent, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. On receipt of the said proceedings, the matter shall be considered and finalized by the first respondent, in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' thereafter. The verdict passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the above extent.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
J. CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE kmd