IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 WP(C).No. 30990 of 2008(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. M(1) SUBRAMANIAN, S/O/ MANTHRI, AGED 48 YEARS, PERMANENT WORKER, ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM,NELLIAMPATHY, PALAKKAD. 2. M.RAMASWAMI, S/O.MUTHU NADAR, AGED 44 YEARS, PERMANENT WORKER, ORANGE AND VEGETABLE FARM, NELLIAMPATHY, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PALAKKAD. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OFANGE AND VEGETABLE, FARM, NELLIYAMBATHI, PALAKKAD. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.30990 of 2008 ------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd November, 2008. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are workers in the Orange and Vegetable Farm at Nelliyampathi, belonging to the Agricultural Department. They were placed under suspension by order passed on 24.3.2003 and later reinstated in service by Ext.P1 order dated 13.10.2003. The petitioners' grievance is that though this Court had in W.P.(C) No.29735 of 2004 directed the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings within four months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment, the disciplinary proceedings have not been finalised till date and orders have not been passed regarding the manner in which the period during which they were placed under suspension has to be regularised. The petitioners also have a grievance that arrears of pay for the period during which they were under suspension has also not been disbursed. W.P.(C) No.30990 of 2008 2 2. When the writ petition came up for admission today, Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that orders have been passed on 16.10.2008 by the second respondent finalising the disciplinary proceedings and directing that the period during which the petitioners were placed under suspension be regularised as leave without allowances. In my considered opinion, that being the situation, no further orders are necessary in this writ petition, except to close it as infructuous, reserving liberty with the petitioners to challenge the orders passed by the second respondent on 16.10.2008, if they are aggrieved thereby. The second respondent shall forthwith communicate a copy of the order passed by him on 16.10.2008 to the petitioners. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE nj.