Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DR.R.SATHEESH KUMAR versus STATE OF KERALA

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


DR.R.SATHEESH KUMAR v. STATE OF KERALA - WP(C) No. 6928 of 2006(Y) [2007] RD-KL 15083 (7 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 6928 of 2006(Y)

1. DR.R.SATHEESH KUMAR,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent

2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE

3. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL OF KERALA (A&E),

For Petitioner :SRI.V.L.SHENOY

For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

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

Dated :07/08/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 6928 OF 2006

Dated this the 7th day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner is stated to be working as Lecturer in Economics in St. Pius X College, Rajapuram in Kasargod District. He had joined the service on January 1, 1997 in the pay scale of Rs.8000-275-13500.

2. It is admitted by the petitioner that his pay was fixed at Rs.9,100/- at the time of appointment. It is not in dispute that petitioner was holding Phd. Degree in the discipline concerned. It is also beyond controversy that appointment of the petitioner was approved by the University

3. Grievance of the petitioner is that his pay is not being fixed as provided under Rule 28A of Part I KSR. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in several similar circumstances, Rule 28A was made applicable and benefits of pay revision were given. Though petitioner has sought to quash Clause 8 of Ext.P1 order of the Government, learned counsel submits that petitioner will be satisfied if an appropriate direction is issued to respondent WPC NO.6928/06 Page numbers No.1 to take a decision on Ext.P4 representation. In that view of the matter, I do not propose to deal with the merit of any of the contentions raised by the petitioner. It is made clear that it will be open to respondent No.1 to take a decision in the matter strictly on its merit and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Respondent No.1 shall ensure that petitioner is afforded sufficient opportunity to be heard before any decision is taken in the matter. It will be open to the petitioner to produce all relevant records in support of his plea before respondent No.1 at the time of hearing. The writ petition is disposed of as above.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.6928/06 Page numbers

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

OP NO.20954/00

JUDGMENT

1ST MARCH, 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.