Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRASANTH K.P. versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


PRASANTH K.P. v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 39284 of 2003(B) [2006] RD-KL 2693 (6 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 39284 of 2003(B)

1. PRASANTH K.P.,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :06/12/2006

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

W.P. (C). NO. 39284 OF 2003

Dated this the 6th day of December, 2006



J U D G M E N T

The writ petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) To issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ or order quashing Ext.P13 as unjust, illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) To issue a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to take a decision in Ext.P10 untrammelled by the observations in Ext.P13. (iii) To declare that the petitioner is entitled for the same rate of pay and other service benefits which he has been paid after the promulgation of GO because the work done by him before and after the said GO is of same nature and same standard and of same responsibility."

2. The main contention of the petitioner is that for the only reason of delay in processing the claim for the scale of pay for the same work done by the vocational lecturers, the petitioner should not have been denied the scale of pay from the date he discharged the duties. The 2nd respondent in Ext.P13 impugned order has taken a stand that such policy WPC NO.39284/03 Page numbers matters are to be decided by the Government. Inviting reference to Ext.P14 judgment of the Supreme Court, it is submitted that the petitioner has to be given pay parity. There is no counter affidavit. The writ petition is disposed of as follows: Petitioner may file an appropriate representation incorporating a copy of Ext.P14 judgment before the 1st respondent within a period of two months from today. Thereafter the 1st respondent will consider the matter adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law, within another four months. In case the petitioner requests an opportunity for hearing, the same shall also be given to the petitioner.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.39284/03 Page numbers

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

OP NO.

JUDGMENT

6th DECEMBER, 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.