IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2258 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17754/2008 Dated 17/06/2008 .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP. ----------------------------------------- T.K.VIJAYARAGHAVAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, LOWER DIVISION CLERK, (H.G.) OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS. --------------------------------------- 1. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, KERALA, THRISSUR. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRERIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 3. PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, KASARAGOD. 4. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURE, KASARAGOD. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1-4 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2258 OF 2008 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The petitioner is the appellant. The Writ Petition was filed seeking the benefit of the provisional service rendered by the petitioner for the purpose of increment and other service benefits. Several instances have been pointed out by the petitioner in the Writ Petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in State of Kerala v. Ponnamma, 2005(4) K.L.T. 987. Hence, this appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submits that the delay on the part of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner along with similarly situated persons may not stand in the way of the petitioner enjoying the benefits as in the case of similarly situated persons. In other words, according to the appellant, had his case been considered along with that of Smt. K.K.Radha, Smt. Bhamini, T.P.Santha etc. pointed out in the Writ Petition, he would have also got the benefit. The appellant, therefore, seeks an opportunity to approach the Government itself pointing out the above and other relevant aspects. For enabling the appellant/petitioner to approach the Government, it is requested that the W.A.NO. 2258/2008 2 Writ Petition may be permitted to be withdrawn. 3. Though normally, this Court would not have granted the permission at the appellate stage, having regard to the peculiar circumstances referred to above, we are of the view that an opportunity can be given to the appellant to approach the Government, particularly taking note of the fact that it is actual recovery that is under challenge in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the Writ Petition as withdrawn and dispose of the Writ Appeal as follows: In the event of the appellant approaching the Government with an appropriate representation within one month from today, the matter will be duly considered by the Government within four months thereafter, after affording the appellant an opportunity of being heard. Subject to the appellant filing a representation as above, the recovery shall be deferred till a decision is taken by the Government. (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A.NO. 2258/2008 3 KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A.NO.2258/2008 JUDGMENT 30th November, 2009 W.A.NO. 2258/2008 4