High Court of Kerala
Case Law Search
M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KOCHU PAPPU v. THE STATION MASTER, WATER TRANSPORT - OP No. 25651 of 2002(D)  RD-KL 11583 (29 June 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAMOP No. 25651 of 2002(D)
1. M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KOCHU PAPPU,
1. THE STATION MASTER, WATER TRANSPORT
2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WATER
3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
O R D E R
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.O.P.No.25651 OF 2002
Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007
By the impugned Ext.P8, the order removing the petitioner from service was set aside on the ground that proceedings under Rule 15 of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1960 were not followed. The grievance of the petitioner that led to the institution of this writ petition is that Ext.P8 did not contain further direction that he is re-instated.
2. By interim order dated 12.3.2003 on C.M.P.No.43551/02, this Court noticed that the legal effect of Ext.P8 is that the petitioner was entitled to re-instatement pending finalisation of the proceedings remitted as per Ext.P8. Obviously, the salary due for the period for which he has worked on the basis of such re-instatement is also due to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the entertainment of the writ petition in hand, he had to again move this Court because the Director decided that the period from the date of his absence till OP.25651/02 Page numbers his re-instatement to be treated as absence and that the Government was refusing to decide on the appeal filed by him against that decision. It is submitted that that writ petition has already been disposed of directing the Government to finalise that issue. Though the petitioner submits that the said appeal is yet to be disposed of by the Government, it does not call for any direction in this writ petition.
3. Following Ext.P8 and the aforesaid interim order, it is
submitted, that petitioner has since retired from service. If that
be so, all that remains is that the proceedings against the
petitioner, following Ext.P8, has to be finalised and all
decisions in relation to how different periods are
to be treated etc, and also disbursal of any outstandings to him
be finally decided in terms of the manner in which the
proceedings remitted as per Ext.P8 concludes.
In the result,
the writ petition is disposed of directing that
steps that are following Ext.P8 shall be finalised within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment and all necessary
action following such decision will be
finalised within two months therefrom.
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, JO.P.NO.25651 OF 2002
29TH JUNE, 2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.