Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHITRADEVI versus THE D.M.O., ALAPPUZHA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


CHITRADEVI v. THE D.M.O., ALAPPUZHA - OP No. 9825 of 2000(T) [2007] RD-KL 10715 (20 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 9825 of 2000(T)

1. CHITRADEVI
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE D.M.O., ALAPPUZHA
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.M.C.MADHAVAN

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH

Dated :20/06/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH J. O.P. Nos.9825/2000 & 15574/2001 Dated 20th June, 2007.

J U D G M E N T

Petitioners in O.P.9825/2000 are aggrieved since they are denied the benefit of non-cadre promotion to the post of Pharmacist Grade I, as per Government Order dated 27.7.1991. The stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the Government is that the benefit was extended only to 140 Pharmacists appointed prior to 1.7.1988. Admittedly, the petitioners are appointed after 1.7.1988. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is no such stipulation that the benefit was intended only to those employees appointed prior to 1.7.1988. Be that as it may, it is stated in the counter affidavit that in the case of those employees who were appointed after 1.7.1988, but granted non-cadre promotion, steps are taken to review and recover such benefits.

2. The petitioners in O.P.15574/01 are aggrieved by the steps taken for recovery. According to them, the Director in Ext.P13 communication has informed the Government that the non-cadre Medical Officers are entitled to have the salary fixed on OP Nos.9825/00 & 15574/01 2 the basis of Ext.P1, and that the impugned steps now taken are without any reference to Ext.P13. They also have a contention that at any rate, before taking steps for recovery of salary already drawn by them, they should have at least been given an opportunity to state their objections. In the above circumstances, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows :- It will be open to the petitioners in both cases to make appropriate representations before the Government within a period of two months from today, in which case, the matter will be duly considered by the Government with notice to those who make the representations and appropriate orders will be passed within another four months. Subject to the petitioners approaching the Government as above, the interim order passed by this Court in C.M.P.No.24374/01 in O.P.No.15574/01 as far as recovery will continue till orders are passed by the Government.

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE.

tgs

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

O.P. Nos.9825/00 & 15574/2001

J U D G M E N T

Dated 20th June, 2007.


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.