Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KOCHU PAPPU versus THE STATION MASTER, WATER TRANSPORT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KOCHU PAPPU v. THE STATION MASTER, WATER TRANSPORT - OP No. 25651 of 2002(D) [2007] RD-KL 11583 (29 June 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

OP No. 25651 of 2002(D)

1. M.P.SAHADEVAN, S/O. KOCHU PAPPU,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE STATION MASTER, WATER TRANSPORT
... Respondent

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

Dated :29/06/2007

O R D E R

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

O.P.No.25651 OF 2002

Dated this the 29th day of June, 2007



JUDGMENT

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 consequential decisions in relation to how different periods are to be treated etc, and also disbursal of any outstandings to him have to 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 OP.25651/02 Page numbers 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. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge kkb. OP.25651/02 Page numbers
=======================

THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J

O.P.NO.25651 OF 2002

JUDGMENT

29TH 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.