IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10656 of 2010(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- R.BIJU, BURNER, MALABAR CEMENTS, PALLIPPURAM P.O., CHERTHALA, ALAPPEY DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, SC/ST DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., WALAYAR, PALAKKAD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH FOR R1 SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN FOR R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 10656 of 2010 F ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as Burner in the Malabar Cements Limited. Service conditions of the employees under the 2nd respondent are governed by All India Cement Wage Board Award. According to the petitioner, in terms of the said Award, he is qualified for the post of Shift Officer Grade M7. He is denied promotion to the said post only on account of certain proceedings initiated against him by the Committee for verification of SC/ST claim. Though the petitioner has submitted repeated representations, on account of the pendency of the said proceedings, the respondents are not taking any action in the said matter. 2. The petitioner has earlier approached this Court along with certain others by filing O.P.No.27392/1999. By Ext.P1 judgment, the said original petition was disposed of. It is submitted by the petitioner that pursuant to Ext.P1, the claims of others were considered favourably. In the said circumstances, the WPC.10656/2010 : 2 : petitioner has preferred Ext.P2 representation before the 2nd respondent. No action was taken thereon till date. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent may be directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P2 in the light of Ext.P1. 3. Considering the fact that Ext.P2 is pending before the 2nd respondent from 02-01-2008 onwards, there will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P2, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering Ext.P2 representation, the 2nd respondent shall look into Ext.P1 as well. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) aks // True Copy // P.A. To Judge