Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIMALAKUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS versus THE STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIMALAKUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS v. THE STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 33123 of 2006(R) [2006] RD-KL 3421 (13 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 33123 of 2006(R)

1. VIMALAKUMARI, AGED 49 YEARS,
... Petitioner

2. GEETHAMMA, AGED 47 YEARS,

Vs

1. THE STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,

3. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KANNUR.

4. THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER,

5. THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER,

6. THE JOINT REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,

For Petitioner :SRI.SUNIL V.MOHAMMED

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :13/12/2006

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 33123 OF 2006

Dated this the 13th December, 2006.



JUDGMENT

The grievance of the petitioners is that arrears of emoluments have not been granted to them despite judgments passed by this Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the non-payment of arrears of emoluments specific request in that behalf should be made before the appropriate authority. If such a representation is filed, the respondents will consider the same and take a decision. The ground taken by the petitioners against Ext.P7 is without any substance at all. Ext.P7 is a general order passed by the Government granting a bunch of benefits to part time casual sweepers and protecting some of the rights enjoyed by them in terms of previous orders. There is nothing in Ext.P7 which can be considered as injurious to the petitioners. I find no substance in the contentions raised by the petitioners against Ext.P7.

2. Without filing even a representation before the concerned authorities this writ petition has been filed. Hence the directions sought for cannot be granted. The petitioners are free to move the appropriate authorities and seek for orders. Certainly their grievances as may be highlighted in such representations shall have to be WPC 33123/2006 2 considered by the competent authority in the light of the judgments already pronounced in their cases an the orders of the Government on the subject. Without prejudice to the above, the Writ petition is dismissed. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.