IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 4TH MARCH 2010 / 13TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 4951 of 2010(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- T.K.PRABHAKARAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. KUMARAN, THEVALIL HOUSE, METHALA.P.O., KODUNGALLOOR, RETIRED AS HIGHER GRADE OPERATOR,P.H.SECTION, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KODUNGALLOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.ASOK M.CHERIAN SRI.SANTHOSH G. PRABHU SRI.S.KANNAN SMT.S.RAKHEE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, JALA BHAVAN, VELLAYAMBALAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI J. KRISHNA KUMAR SC KWA ADV. SRI.C.UNNIKRISHNAN, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C). NO.4951 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retiree from the service of the Kerala Water Authority. On 31.7.07, he retired from its service as Operator (Higher Grade). The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non-consideration of his repeated requests for treating him as NMR Operator (skilled) with effect from 20.3.1973. The case of the petitioner is that certain similarly situated persons were given the benefits after treating them as being absorbed as NMR Operators (skilled). In the circumstances, the petitioner has already filed Ext.P1 representation for treating him as being absorbed as NMR Operator (skilled) with effect from 20.3.1973, before the respondent. The said representation is still pending. 2. Considering the specific contention that similarly situated persons were treated to have been absorbed as NMR Operator (skilled) and were given consequential benefits, I am of the view that the request of the petitioner made as per Ext.P1 requires consideration. Therefore, there shall W.P.(C) NO.4951/2010 2 be a direction to the respondent to consider Ext.P1 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. In case the petitioner requests for a personnel hearing, the said request shall also be considered by the first respondent, before taking a decision on Ext.P1. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) spc W.P.(C) NO.4951/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C). NO.4951/2010 JUDGMENT 4th March, 2010