S.USHA KUMARI versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

S.USHA KUMARI v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY - WA No. 1607 of 2007 [2007] RD-KL 11916 (3 July 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WA No. 1607 of 2007()

1. S.USHA KUMARI,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION,

For Petitioner :SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.S.RADHAKRISHNAN The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :03/07/2007

O R D E R

K.S.Radhakrishnan &

Antony Dominic, JJ.

========================
W.A.No.1607 of 2007
========================

Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2007.

JUDGMENT

Radhakrishnan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Government Pleader.

2. Writ Petition, W.P.(C) No.13180 of 2006 was preferred seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P6 and for a direction to the respondents to grant the scale of pay of Assistant Lecturer to the petitioner with effect from the date on which she come over to the said post by taking note of the fact that the said post has completely abolished with effect from 31.5.2000 and also for a declaration that the petitioner is entitled for higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.6,675 - 10,550 since she was qualified for promotion to the post of Assistant Lecturer before abolition of the said post and for other reliefs. Petitioner made representation before the second respondent through proper channel requesting to grant her the highher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.6675 - 10550. But the said representation has  WA 1607/07 -: 2 :- been declined and granted only in the scale of pay of Rs.5,500-9,075 by Ext.P6 communication dated 28.2.2006 issued by the Senior Joint Director, Technical Education to the Principal of the College. Petitioner submits that similarly situated persons have been granted higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.6,675-10,550 by the second respondent by order No.EB 4/26905/05 dated 21.4.2006. Hence we direct the second respondent to pass orders on the representation afresh within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is proposing to file a comprehensive representation raising all the contentions along with documents. She may do so. Such representations should also be considered by the second respondent and pass orders. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. K.S.Radhakrishnan, Judge. Antony Dominic, Judge. ess 3/7 

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.