Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C.U.MARY versus THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C.U.MARY v. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE - WP(C) No. 8285 of 2007(J) [2007] RD-KL 6264 (27 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8285 of 2007(J)

1. C.U.MARY,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE DIRECTOR OF SOCIAL WELFARE,
... Respondent

2. SECRETARY TO GOVT.,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR

For Respondent : No Appearance

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

Dated :27/03/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO.8285 of 2007

Dated this the 15th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioner is working as Child Development Project Officer. As per Ext.P3 order dated 12.12.2006 passed by the first respondent, a penalty of withholding increment without cumulative effect for one year has been imposed on the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked Rule 23 of the Kerala Civil Services, Classification and Appeal Rules 1960 and has filed Ext.P4 appeal before the second respondent. The petitioner is due to retire from service by the end of May 2007. Counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that delay in disposing Ext.P4 appeal will result in adverse consequences not only in the matter of enjoyment of service benefits till her retirement but even in the matter of the pensionary benefits. It is submitted that this Court may direct the second respondent to take early decision on Ext.P4. W.P.(C)No. 8285/2007 :2:

2. Heard the Government Pleader for the respondents.

3. In the circumstances, it is necessary that the first respondent shall be directed to consider Ext.P4 and take decision, in accordance with law, within a time frame. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to call for the relevant records from the first respondent, to consider Ext.P4. as expeditiously as possible, and pass orders in accordance with law, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the second respondent for information and compliance.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

css / W.P.(C)No. 8285/2007 :3: s W.P.(C)No. 8285/2007 :4:


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.