Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHANTY GEORGE, W/O PETER versus KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


SHANTY GEORGE, W/O PETER v. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - WP(C) No. 10616 of 2007(L) [2007] RD-KL 6326 (27 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 10616 of 2007(L)

1. SHANTY GEORGE, W/O PETER,
... Petitioner

2. MINI JOSEPH, D/O.LATE SHRI JOSEPH,

Vs

1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.),

3. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

4. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER,

5. THE DIRECTOR,

For Petitioner :SRI.M.K.SHASHI 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.10616 OF 2007 L = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 27th March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

The petitioners, it is stated, are physically challenged persons. They were employed as temporary hands in the service of the 1st respondent. It is contended that after termination of their service, respondents 1 to 4 have not paid any heed to the request of the petitioners for reinstatement in service though the Government have issued various orders promising such reinstatement and regularisation in service. The petitioners have approached the 5th respondent-Director of Social Welfare Department on the assumption that their grievance can be redressed by the 5th respondent. At the same time the petitioners have approached the 2nd respondent also with Exts. P9 and P10 representations.

2. It is not understood whether the 1st respondent has adopted the Government Orders pertaining to re- employment of physically challenged persons appointed on temporary basis. That is a matter for the 2nd respondent to verify, and thereafter, to consider the WPC No.10616 /2007 -2- request made by the petitioners in Exts. P9 and P10.

3. The 2nd respondent is therefore directed to consider Exts. P9 and P10 on merits and take decision in accordance with law and communicate the same to the petitioner as early as possible, in any event, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The petitioners shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition for information and compliance. K.K. DENESAN

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.