IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2373 of 2010(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- C.V.SANKARAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.C.K.VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, AGED 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHAVARKKAT ILLAM, VIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR-10.(SANTHI AT KUTTUMUKKU DEVASWOM KEZHADAM KARTHIYANI TEMPLE). BY ADVS. SRI.K.G.BALASUBRAMANIAN SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEVASWOM OFFICE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. 3. THE SPECIAL DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, SIVSAKTHI BUILDINGS, ROUND NORTH, TRISSUR. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI. K. GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2373 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Santhi under the Cochin Devaswom Board. Earlier, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings, he was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order dated 22.4.2009. Challenging Ext.P1 order, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.20300 of 2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment with certain directions. Pursuant to Ext. P2, the first respondent passed Ext.P5 order directing to reinstate the petitioner at Achuthapooram Temple. On account of certain reasons, which according to the petitioner was beyond his control, but, which according to the respondents occasioned due to the reluctance on the part of the petitioner, he could not join duty in the temple where he was posted, as per Ext.P5. It is now submitted that on account of certain protests by the temple advisory committee, it will not be conducive to the smooth functioning of the temple to post the petitioner as Santhi in the said temple and, therefore, according to the respondents, they are proposing to give a fresh posting order to the petitioner, posting him W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010 2 to any temple other than Achuthapooram Temple and Maruthur Karthiyayani Temple, the place where he was working at the time when he was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is also not against such a consideration. 2. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to take up the matter regarding issuance of a fresh posting order to the petitioner and issue such an order expeditiously. Needless to say, the delay in granting a posting to the petitioner cannot deprive him of his due salary. The petitioner is also having another grievance, that is, the delay in the matter of finalisation of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. It will be only proper for the competent authority to look into the said grievance and expedite the disciplinary proceedings. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010 JUDGMENT 3rd February, 2010 W.P.(C) NO. 2373/2010 4