Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

T.K. DEVADAS versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


T.K. DEVADAS v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 7774 of 2005(A) [2006] RD-KL 72 (3 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7774 of 2005(A)

1. T.K.DEVADAS, HELPER, CALICUT CARGO
... Petitioner

2. MOIDEEN KOYA.P.

3. K.V.MATHUNNY, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

4. ABDUL KHADER .N. HELPER, C.A.C.C.

5. ABDUL SALAM K.P. HELPER C.A.C.C.

6. P.P.ENUDEENKUTTY, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

7. K.J.ANTONY, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

8. V.C.KRISHNAN, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

9. RAGHAVAN, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

10. VELAYUDHAN P.O. HELPER, C.A.C.C.

11. M.ABDUL AKBAR, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

12. E.ASSANKOYA, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

13. T.K.ABDUL JABBAR, HELPER, C.A.C.C.

14. M.P.HAMIDALI, C.A.C.C.

Vs

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

2. THE KERALA STATE DEPARTMENT & CHEMICALS,

3. THE KERALA STATE INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES

For Petitioner :SRI.K.RAMAKUMAR

For Respondent :SRI.ANTONY DOMINIC

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.THANKAPPAN

Dated :03/07/2006

O R D E R

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 7774 OF 2005

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2006



JUDGMENT

The petitioners are employees of the second respondent, a Government Owned Enterprise. They seek a direction to the first respondent to absorb them in the services of the third respondent.

2. While the second respondent - company was not functioning , some of the employees including the petitioners were sent on deputation under the third respondent, another Government owned company, on rotation basis and they were being engaged by the third respondent - company as and when required. The petitioners now submit that two of the employees sent on deputation have been absorbed in the third respondent - company on the basis of the order passed by the first respondent. Being similarly placed, the petitioners also seek a direction to be absorbed in the third respondent - company.

3. Heard counsel on either side. Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submits that two persons were absorbed in the service of the third W.P.(C)NO.7774/2005 2 respondent on the basis of Ext.R3(f) order passed by the first respondent and that the petitioners can also represent the matter before the Government.

4. In the above circumstances, the petitioners may file representations before the first respondent within one month from today and if such representations are received, the first respondent shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon within three months from the date of receipt of the representations. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above direction.

(K.THANKAPPAN, JUDGE)

sp/ W.P.(C)NO.7774/2005 3

K.THANKAPPAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO.7774/2005

JUDGMENT

3RD JULY, 2006 W.P.(C)NO.7774/2005 4


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.