Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

EAPEN MATHEW versus STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


EAPEN MATHEW v. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE - WP(C) No. 20650 of 2007(G) [2007] RD-KL 16068 (20 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 20650 of 2007(G)

1. EAPEN MATHEW,
... Petitioner

2. M.G.PHILIP

3. ANIL ANTONY,

4. GOPALAKRISHNAN,

5. P.K.RADHAKRISHNAN,

6. ROY ABRAHAM,

7. N.I.RAJU,

8. M.R.SASIDHARAN NAIR

9. K.N.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR

10. GIGI THOMAS

11. P.J.VARUGHESE

12. M.K.BHASKARAN

13. P.K.VISHWANATHA PILLAI

14. P.C.ABRAHAM

15. N.M.THOMAS

16. V.J.CHACKO

17. R.S.PRASANNAKUMAR

18. N.ANILKUMAR

19. K.V.VARGHESE

20. P.UNNIKRISHNAN

21. M.S.UMMEN

22. K.K.VIJAYAN

23. O.K.SHRIDHARAN

24. K.S.MURALIDHARAN PILLAI

25. P.S.SHIVANKUTTAN

26. V.R.MOHANDAS

27. K.N.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI

28. K.THOMAS

29. PRABHAKARA PANICKER

30. SASHANKA KURUP

31. P.C.RAVINDRAN

32. K.G.VIJAYAKUMARAN NAIR

33. V.R.SANISH KUMAR

34. M.P.VISHWANATHAN PILLAI

35. K.M.MURALIDHARAN NAIR

36. T.C.GANGADHARAN

37. K.S.RAVINDRAN NAIR

38. VARUGHESE PHILIP

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

4. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

5. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER

For Petitioner :SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE

For Respondent : No Appearance

Dated :20/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC, J.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 20650 OF 2007 G = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 20th August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioners have described themselves as Pump Operators working in the Minor Irrigation Department. Claiming benefit of Ext. P4, an order issued by the 2nd respondent, petitioners have filed Ext. P7 representation which is pending before the 1st respondent. Taking into account the pendency of Ext. P7 I dispose of the writ petition directing the 1st respondent to consider and pass orders thereon in the light of Ext. P4, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Before final orders are passed on Ext. P7 one of the petitioners shall be given notice and be heard. The 1st respondent shall also take note of the fact that the benefits of Ext. P4 has been extended to persons who are eligible for the same. W.P.(C) No. 20650 OF 2007 -2- Petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this judgment before the 1st respondent for compliance. ANTONY DOMINIC

JUDGE

jan/-


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.