Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P. ABDULLA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P. ABDULLA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 28515 of 2003(T) [2006] RD-KL 2118 (29 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 28515 of 2003(T)

1. P.ABDULLA, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR (EDUCATION),

3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA,

For Petitioner :SRI.CHERIAN VARGHESE

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :29/11/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P.(C) No. 28515 of 2003 Dated 29th November, 2006.

J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed mainly with the following prayers :-

(i) "To call for the entire records which led to the passing of Ext.P4 and quash the same by issuance of a writ of certiorari or any other writ, direction or order. (ii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to get a chance for re-option before refixation of pay consequent on the finding that the LWA(study purpose) granted to the petitioner will also count as service, for all purposes by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction or order. (iii) To direct the respondents to afford an opportunity for re- option and to refix his pay at different stages of fixation like pay revisions 1978, 1983, 88, 93 and 1997, Higher Grade promotion etc. and draw and disburse the consequential benefits immediately, by issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction or order." There is no counter affidavit. It is seen from Ext.P1 Government Order dated 6.9.1999 that the period is liable to be counted as qualifying service. Since the said order is of the year 1999, and the fixations are prior to that, necessarily, the petitioner has to be given a chance for reoption. I quash Ext.P4. There will be a direction to the first respondent to permit the petitioner to make re-option as recommended in Ext.P2, in the light of Ext.P1. This shall be done within a period of one month from the date of WP NO.28515/03 2 production of a copy of the judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J

O.P.No. of 2003

J U D G M E N T

Dated 24th November, 2006.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.