IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2009 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1931 WP(C).No. 34098 of 2009(F) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- N.V.SURENDRANATH, AGED 62 YEARS,SON OF M.K.MADHAVAN NAIR, NAMBATHETH HOUSE, P.O.NELLIKKATTIRI, VIA.KOOTTANAD,PALAKKAD,RETD.EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MULAYANGARA BHAGAVATHY DEVASWOM. BY ADVS. MR.M.RAMESH CHANDER, SMT.K.A.SANJEETHA. RESPONDENT: ---------------------- THE COMMISSIONER, MALABAR DEVASWOM BOARD,KOZHIKODE. BY MR.K.MOHANAKANNAN, S.C, M.D.B. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/12/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.34098/2009-F: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 06/11/2000. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 14/02/2001. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 12/05/2003. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE LETTER BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 01/01/1998. EXT.P.5; COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/10/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 10/11/2007. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.H.R.14/1943/2001 OF THE RESPONDENT DT. 08/11/2002. EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE REQUEST BY THE PETITIONER DTD. 02/11/2007. EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE ORDER NO. H7/1439/09/K. DIS. OF RESPONDENT DTD. 06/10/2009. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.34098 OF 2009 (F) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is a retired Executive Officer of the respondent Board. Claiming retrospective promotion and consequential benefits, he filed a representation dated 19.12.2008 before the first respondent. That is rejected by Ext.P9, which only states that a retired Executive Officer cannot be granted retrospective promotion. However, this order does not disclose any reason why the claim was not considered. Since the view taken in Ext.P9 has civil consequences, the claim of the petitioner should have been considered complying with the principles of natural justice. Therefore, for the aforesaid reason, I am inclined to think that Ext.P9 deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered. 2. Accordingly, quashing Ext.P9, I direct the first respondent to issue notice to the petitioner and after hearing him pass fresh orders on the representation, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 2 months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No. /09 :2 :