Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

K.A.VENUGOPAL versus STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


K.A.VENUGOPAL v. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY - WP(C) No. 32377 of 2006(D) [2007] RD-KL 565 (9 January 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 32377 of 2006(D)

1. K.A.VENUGOPAL,
... Petitioner

Vs

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

2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT,

4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

5. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E),

For Petitioner :SMT.P.V.ASHA

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :09/01/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J.

WP(C)No. 32377 OF 2006

Dated this the 9th January, 2007.



JUDGMENT

The petitioner has retired from service while working as Special Grade Executive Officer. Certain grievances pertaining to pay fixation have been brought by the petitioner to the notice of the authorities.

2. He has sought for orders approving the pay fixed by the Deputy Director of Panchayats, Thrissur, to revise his pensionary benefits based on the pay thus refixed taking note of the judgments relevant on the subject and to grant him all consequential benefits. Ext.P15 representation is seen to have been sent to the Government for redressal. Having not received any reply this writ petition has been filed.

3. Govt. Pleader on instruction submits that Ext.P15 representation is not seen received by the first respondent and therefore no action has been taken on the request of the petitioner.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is prepared to submit one more representation in the same lines as he had done while submitting Ext.P15 and this Court may direct the first respondent to take appropriate decision on that representation. WPC 32377/2006 2

5. In the circumstances there shall be an order directing the petitioner to submit appropriate representation addressed to the first respondent routed through the third respondent for onward transmission to the first respondent through the second respondent. Such representation shall be filed within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The third respondent shall forward the representation with his remarks to the second respondent within two weeks thereafter. The second respondent shall transmit the representation with his suggestions, if any, to the first respondent within three weeks thereafter. The first respondent shall take appropriate decision on the representation within one month thereafter. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the third respondent as also before the first respondent for information and compliance. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 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.