Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JIJI,AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.SIVADAS versus KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


JIJI,AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.SIVADAS v. KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 8090 of 2007(K) [2007] RD-KL 5543 (16 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8090 of 2007(K)

1. JIJI,AGED 35 YEARS,D/O.SIVADAS,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. KODUNGALLUR MUNICIPALITY,REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent

2. CHILD DEVELOPEMENT PROJECT OFFICER,

3. DISTRICT SOCIAL WELFARE OFFICE,THRISSUR.

4. GANGA M.U,AGED 20 YEARS,MATTATHIL HOUSE,

For Petitioner :SRI.BABU KARUKAPADATH

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :16/03/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 8090 OF 2007

Dated this the 16th March, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner had been working as Anganwadi Worker in the first respondent Municipality on temporary basis for two spells. The total number of days she had worked according to the petitioner comes to 264 days. Government issued Ext.P1 order dated 11.10.2006 for the purpose of regularising the temporarily appointed Anganwadi workers. Ext.P1 was modified by Ext.P2 order dated 6.1.2007. According to the petitioner if a list is prepared in terms of Ext.P1 as modified by Ext.P2, the petitioner's name shall find a place therein. But in Ext.P3 list published by the respondent-Municipality, the petitioner's name is omitted. Hence this writ petition has been filed challenging Ext.P3 list. The petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to prepare the seniority list of temporary Anganwadi workers strictly in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 reckoning the date of her initial appointment for the purpose of seniority.

2. After hearing the counsel for the petitioner at some length, I felt that the alleged violation of Exts.P1 and P2 orders by any of the subordinate authorities or local bodies, can be brought to the notice of the third WPC 8090/2007 2 respondent who is the officer at the district level to see that orders issued by the Government are properly implemented by the project officers of the concerned Municipalities.

3. The petitioner has filed Ext.P4 representation addressed to the third respondent requesting to issue appropriate directions to the first respondent to prepare the list in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 and to redress her grievance.

4. I have heard Govt. Pleader appearing for the third respondent. In the nature of the order I propose to pass, it is not necessary, at this stage, to issue notice to respondents 1, 2 and 4.

5. The writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to take up for consideration Ext.P4 immediately, issue notice to the petitioner, the respondents 1 and 4, afford them an opportunity of being heard and take decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to state that if the third respondent finds that Ext.P3 list was drawn up not strictly in terms of Exts.P1 and P2, appropriate directions shall be issued to the first respondent to prepare a fresh list within a time WPC 8090/2007 3 frame. With the above directions this writ petition is disposed of. K.K.DENESAN Judge jj


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.