IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 23771 of 2008(E) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- G.RAJAGOPAL, (FORMER CHIEF ENGINEER), NODAL OFFICER FOR SABARIMALA MASTER PLAN & PAMBA ACTION PLAN, T.D.B.OFFICE, ARANMULA. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN C.MENON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.V.KRISHNA MENON FOR R1 SMT.P.VIJAYAMMA FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.23771/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE BOARD PROCEEDINGS AFORESAID DT. 17.2.05. P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DT. 8.5.08 (ROC 1732/08/M/EXT.) P3:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING S DT. 8.5.08. P4:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT21.5.08 AGAINST EXT.P2 PROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P5:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. 21.5.08 AGAINST EXT.P3 PROCEEDING S SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. P6:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DT. 22.7.08 (ROC 1732/08/M/EST.1). RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT DT. 26.9.08 SUBMITTED BY THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD BEFORE THE HONOURABLE OMBUDSMAN. R1(b):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD DT. 30.6.08. R1(c):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 6.6.08 SENT BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL) TO THE PETITIONER. R1(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 16.6.08 SENT BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL) TO THE PETITIONER. R1(e):- COPY OF THE LETTER DT. 20.6.08 SENT BY THE CHIEF ENGINEER (GENERAL ) TO THE PETITIONER. /TRUE COPY/ P.S. TO JUDGE tss P.R.Raman & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.23771 of 2008-E - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008. JUDGMENT Raman, J. The petitioner is a Chief Engineer who is working in the Headquarters of the Travancore Devaswom Board. While so, he was appointed as Nodal Officer for co-ordinating and implementing the various works under the Master Plan of Sabarimala. Though the construction of a pucca office at Pathanamthitta is under-way, it is yet to be completed. Meanwhile, the office of the Chief Engineer was shifted to Aranmula as a temporary measure. However, the grievance of the petitioner is that necessary staff and other infrastructural facilities are not given to him and he is practically without any work. 2. We referred the matter to Ombudsman. After considering all aspects of the matter and after hearing the parties, the Ombudsman submitted a report. In para 3 of the Report, it is stated that one post of U.D. Clerk/L.D. Clerk, one post of Asst. Engineer, one post of 2nd/3rd Grade Overseer, one post of Typist on daily wages, one post of Peon/Lascar and one post of Driver were all sanctioned by transfer from other offices on duty WPC 23771/2008 -2- basis. It is also stated that required furniture has also been made available, but no telephone is provided. Further, a typewriter or a computer is required. 3. Subsequently, a counter affidavit is filed by the Board. It is stated that a typist will be provided soon after complying with the official formalities. The Executive Engineer at Mavelikkara has also been directed to provide a computer. 4. Hence, there will be a direction to the Board to ensure the supply of a typist as also to provide a computer within a period of three weeks from today. The petitioner will also take up the work under the Master Plan in a phased manner. 5. Now what remains is only to consider the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the direction contained in Ext.P2 to record the dissatisfaction of the Board in the Service Book of the petitioner. Even though a representation was made in this behalf, the same was disposed of by Ext.P6 without adverting to the grievance so raised in Ext.P4 representation. Undisbutably, when any adverse remark is entered in the service records an opportunity has to be afforded to the person against whom such remarks are made. The representation made in this behalf also WPC 23771/2008 -3- was not considered. As such, the Board is directed to reconsider the matter and till then Ext.P2 will stand stayed. 6. Since the very object of appointing a Nodal Officer is to expedite the various works under the Master Plan, we think the direction contained in Ext.P3 that all works to be dealt with by the Nodal Officer will be directly under the control of the Chief Engineer (General), may delay the process of implementation and therefore the Board may reconsider the matter, so that the petitioner could directly report to the Board. The writ petition is disposed of as above. ( P.R.Raman, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/