REGIMON K.MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

REGIMON K.MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 10200 of 2005(L) [2007] RD-KL 11915 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10200 of 2005(L)

1. REGIMON K.MATHEW, S/O. MATHEW,
... Petitioner

2. ANTO GEORGE, S/O. VARKEY,

3. BIJU JOSEPH, S/O. V.J.JOSEPH,

4. JOHN MATHEW, S/O. V.M.JOHN,

5. MATHEWKUTTY JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH,

6. MATHEW M.KURIAKOSE, S/O. KURIAKOSE,

7. SHAJU S.PALEETHOTTAM,

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

For Petitioner :SRI.ROY THOMAS

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

A.K.BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C)No.10200 OF 2005

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are now working as Higher Secondary School teachers. Admittedly, they were working as Junior Lecturers in colleges under different managements. After bifurcation of Pre- degree from colleges, petitioners had to be accommodated in the Higher Secondary Education Department. Thus they were deployed as Higher Secondary School teachers and they are even now continuing as such. At the time, when this writ petition was filed, the grievance of the petitioners was that they were not given service benefits which they would have got under normal circumstances.

2. I do not propose to go into the details of the issue since in the counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2, it is stated that the petitioners have been given several of the benefits which they have been clamoring for. However, it is admitted by respondent no.2 that for grant the remaining benefits appropriate sanction has to be obtained from the Government. It is stated that as and when orders are received from the Government, such benefit will also be given to the petitioners.  W.P.(C)No.10200 OF 2005

3. Learned counsel submits that petitioners will be satisfied, if respondent no.1 is directed to take an expeditious decision on Ext.P21 representation in which petitioners have highlighted all the relevant aspects of the issue. Learned Government Pleader submits that appropriate decision on Ext.P21 will be taken, if it has been preferred as contended by the petitioners. In the above facts and circumstances, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.1 to consider and pass orders on Ext.P21 strictly on its merit and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to mention that an authorised representative of the petitioners shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. Petitioners shall produce copies of the writ petition and counter affidavit along with a certified copy of the judgment before respondent no.1 for compliance.

A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE

jes 

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

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.