IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34558 of 2009(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.KANAKAM, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D.SECTION, ELAVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION & ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34558 OF 2009 (L) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is an Assistant Engineer on deployment from Water Resources Department to Local Self Government Department. According to the petitioner having completed 3 years, she is entitled to be repatriated to the parent department. That was not done and therefore she had approached this court and the matter was directed to be considered in Ext.P3 judgment. It is stated that however the request was turned down on the ground that repatriation was not possible for the reason of certain interlocutory orders passed by this court. According to the petitioner those interlocutory orders have all been vacated and therefore there should not be any impediment in considering her repatriation. It is stated that urging all this she has filed Ext.P7 before the 3rd respondent. Petitioner also refers to Exts.P5 and P6 where according to the petitioner posts have been created and posting have been effected. On this ground also petitioner seeks to be repatriated to the parent department. Irrespective of the contentions that are raised on the merits of the claim, now WPC.No.34558 /09 :2 : that the petitioner has filed Ext.P7 pointing out her grievances before the 3rd respondent, it is for the 3rd respondent,o consider the same. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to deal with Ext.P7 in the light of Exts.P5 and P7, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment before the 3rd respondent for compliance. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/