Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Kerala High Court

Jeemon vs The State Of Kerala on 25 May, 2007

Author: K.Balakrishnan Nair

Bench: K.Balakrishnan Nair

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 15238 of 2005(L)


1. JEEMON, S/O. V.J. THOMAS,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. M.X. WILSON, S/O. M.J. XAVIER,
3. ASHARAF, S/O. P.M. ABDUL RAHIMAN,
4. NOUSHAD M.N., S/O. M.K. NADESAN,
5. SAHADEVAN E.K., S/O. A.N.KARUNAKARAN,

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS,

3. THE KOCHI CORPORATION

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN

                For Respondent  :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR

 Dated :25/05/2007

 O R D E R



                            K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J.

                        --------------------------------------

                           W.P.(C) No.15238 of 2005-L

                       ----------------------------------------

                    Dated this the  25th   day of  May, 2007


                                   J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are Junior Health Inspectors working in the Municipal Common Service. They were appointed based on the advice made by the PSC. They submit, they were having regular service in the Health Department in the identical post. They pray for a direction to pay the salary and allowances reckoning the last pay drawn by them from the Health Department. Claiming this relief they have filed Ext.P16 representation. Now, the petitioners have produced Ext.P19 order in which relief has been granted to two similarly placed employees, by the Government. In view of the above position, they pray for consideration of the claim raised by them in Ext.P16, taking into account Ext.P19.

2. I heard the learned Government Pleader for the respondents also.

3. The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to forward Ext.P16 with his remarks to the first respondent, within one month from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. In that event, the Government will consider and pass orders on Ext.P16, Wpc 15238 of 2005 2 taking into account Ext.P19 also within three months from the date of receipt of the representation from the second respondent.

K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE.

MS