IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15728 of 2010(M) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- USHA.P., SENIOR CLERK, WAYANAD DISTRICT WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S STORES LTD.NO.W-36, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.N.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE PART TIME ADMINISTRATOR, WAYANAD DISTRICT WHOLESALE CO-OPERATIVE CONSUMER'S STORES LTD.NO.W-36, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), WAYANAD DISTRICT. R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 15728 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the Senior-most Clerk in the service of the Wayanad District Wholesale Co-operative Consumers' Stores Ltd.No.W-36. Since there is no Managing Director for the Society, the petitioner was put in charge of the duties of the Managing Director from 1st December, 2007. Accordingly, she was functioning as the Managing Director in charge of the Society. While so, the part time Administrator of the Society took a decision to issue identity cards to eight employees of the Society and entrusted the work to a photographer. The photographer issued the cards only on 3.5.2010. For the delay committed by the photographer, it is alleged that the petitioner has been reverted to the post of Clerk from the post of Managing Director, without issuing any notice or conducting any enquiry. It is the case of the petitioner that the procedure under Rule 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules 1969 should have been followed before reverting her. According to the petitioner, the actual Wpc 15728/2010 2 reason for her reversion was that she had refused to issue a cheque to the Contractor who had supplied fire crackers worth Rs.5,00,000/- which the Administrator wanted to sell during the Vishu season. The Contractor was directed to take back the unsold crackers worth Rs.1,00,000/- which was of poor quality. The petitioner had refused to issue the cheque only because he had refused to take back the unsold fire crackers. Therefore, she contends that the action taken against her is without any justification. 2. I notice from Ext.P4 produced by the petitioner that the petitioner was only put in charge of the duties of the Managing Director. Therefore, as the senior-most Clerk in the service of the Society, the petitioner was only holding charge of the said post. For the above reason, it cannot be said that there has been any reversion of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P7 to the second respondent, setting out her grievances. It is also submitted that no orders have been passed on Ext.P7, till date. Since the grievances of the petitioner are engaging the attention of the second respondent, it is not necessary for me to consider the contentions of the petitioner on the Wpc 15728/2010 3 merits. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner, set out in Ext.P7 representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk