Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

S.SHEIKH MEERAN RAWTHER versus THEPRINCIPAL SECRETARY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


S.SHEIKH MEERAN RAWTHER v. THEPRINCIPAL SECRETARY - OP No. 17085 of 2000(H) [2007] RD-KL 1088 (15 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 17085 of 2000(H)

1. S.SHEIKH MEERAN RAWTHER
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THEPRINCIPAL SECRETARY
... Respondent

For Petitioner :SRI.V.P.SUKUMAR

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :15/01/2007

O R D E R

S.SIRI JAGAN,J

O.P.NO.17085 OF 2000

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY,2007



JUDGMENT

In O.P.No.18054 of 1998 I had occasion to consider the travails of the petitioner on account of certain ill-will by the respondents towards the petitioner for some reason which was found to be true by this court in the judgment dated 24.11.2000 in Writ Appeal No.2635 of 2000. This Original Petition has some nexus with that Original Petition. The petitioner was suspended from service on certain allegations of misconduct pursuant to a complaint filed by a Member of Legislative Assembly that the petitioner misbehaved with him. Ultimately, by virtue of orders of this court, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 11.8.1998. Subsequently, the disciplinary proceedings ended letting off the petitioner with a warning to be more careful in future, by Ext.P6 order. The issue involved in this Original Petition is the regularisation of the petitioner's service for the period of his suspension. By Ext.P9 order it was directed that the O.P.NO.17085 OF 2000 :2: petitioner's period of suspension from 25.4.1998 to 11.8.1998 would be treated as duty for all purposes except pay and allowances by limiting the same to 80%, less the subsistence allowances already paid as per rule 56 B(5), Part I of Kerala Service Rules. Exts.P6 and P9 order are not challenged in this Writ Petition. In view of the Division Bench decision mentioned above holding that the respondent had some axe to grind against the petitioner, I would have been inclined to go into this question further. But in view of the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service 31.3.2001, I think that it is not necessary to consider the same any further. In this connection it may be noted that it had been directed in O.P.No.18054 of 1998 that the respondents shall give the petitioner his due promotion also with effect from 6.8.1998. In view of these circumstances I feel that situation as it is should be allowed to remain. Accordingly the Writ Petition is closed.

S.SIRI JAGAN,JUDGE

dvs


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.