IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 11TH MAY 2010 / 21ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14606 of 2010(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ SUHARA BEEVI M.M., ASSISTANT ENGINEER, LSGD SECTION, NEDUMBASSERY GRAMA PANCHAYAT, NEDUMBASSERY, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, L.S.G.D., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. GRACY JOSEPH, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, THIRUVENGAPPURA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, THIRUVENGAPPURA, PATTAMBY- VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/05/2010,ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 14607/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) Nos.14606 & 14607 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners in both these writ petitions are challenging the order dated 12.4.2010 passed by the 3rd respondent, raising common contentions. Therefore, they were jointly heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The specific contention of the petitioners is that though the order is dated 12.4.2010, it was, in fact, published only on 6.5.2010 and that it was passed without considering their respective representations. In the said representations the petitioners have raised a contention that they are entitled to get repatriated to the parent department on completion of 3 years on deployment. According to them, they have already completed the said period of three years in November, 2009. The entitlement of the petitioner to repatriation to the parent department on completion of three years in terms of Exts.P1 and P2 is a matter to be considered by the second respondent. In both these writ petitions the second respondent is one and the same authority and Ext.P5 is the W.P. (C) Nos.14606 & 14607 OF 2010. : 2 : respective representations filed by them, before the 2nd respondent. Therefore, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions they are disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P5 representations submitted by the petitioners expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from today. In case, the petitioners are not relieved pursuant to Ext.P6 they shall be permitted to continue in their present station till a decision is taken, as directed above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma