Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.P. GANGADHARAN, SENIOR versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.P. GANGADHARAN, SENIOR v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 38756 of 2003(L) [2007] RD-KL 3757 (20 February 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 38756 of 2003(L)

1. P.P. GANGADHARAN, SENIOR
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
... Respondent

2. CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KERALA STATE

3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE

4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KERALA STATE

5. CHIEF INTERNAL AUDITOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.P.M.PAREETH

For Respondent :SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, SC, KSEB

Dated :20/02/2007

O R D E R

KURIAN JOSEPH , J.

................................................................................... W.P.(C) No. 38756 OF 2003 ...................................................................................

Dated this the 20th February, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order commanding the third respondent to grant second higher grade to the petitioner on completion of 18 years service in the post of Senior Assistant as on 29.08.1992 and third higher grade as on 29.08.1999 on completion of 25 years of service in that post. ii) Issue a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to get second and third higher grades on completion of 18 and 25 years service in the post of Senior Assistant on the basis of Exhibit P3 and in view of re-assignment of date of promotion to the post of Senior Assistant retrospectively. Iii) Issue a direction to the respondents to disburse arrears of pay consequent on the grant of second and third higher grades to the petitioner as on 29.08.1992 and 29.08.1999."

2. One of the contentions raised in the Original Petition is that he is not given a similar treatment as given to the employee covered by W.P.(C) No. 38756 OF 2003 2 Ext.P6 though he is similarly situated. The petitioner has filed Ext. P8 representation before the second respondent.

3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be a direction to the second respondent to look into Ext.P4 representation with notice to the petitioner and take appropriate action, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment, without discriminating the petitioner, in case he is similarly situated as that of the employee covered by Ext. P6. Writ Petition is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH,

JUDGE.

lk

KURIAN JOSEPH, J.

........................................................ W.P.(C) No. 38756 OF 2003 .........................................................

Dated this the 20th February, 2007



J U D G M E N T


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.