IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 24TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1185 of 2009(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.T. MOHANAN, AGED 44 YEARS, S/O. LATE THANKAPPAN, WORKING AS VILLAGE MAN, KANJIRAPPALLY TALUK OFFICE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MOHAN JACOB GEORGE SMT.P.V.PARVATHI SMT.REENA THOMAS SRI.L.RAM MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER (REVENUE ESTABLISHMENT) OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, PUBLIC OFFICE BUILDING, MUSEUM JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 33. BY G.P. SHRI ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1185 of 2009-N - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of February, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Villageman under the second respondent. As per Ext.P1 seniority list, he is ranked No.60. The same is the extract of the final seniority list of Villageman. By Ext.P2 dated 2.9.2003, he was placed under suspension based on a newspaper report regarding missing of pages of Thandappers in connection with the issuance of some bogus pattas. After 1264 days he was reinstated in service by Ext.P3. Later on, as per Ext.P4, some of his juniors have been promoted. According to him, serial Nos.2, 4 and 5 are his juniors, as per Ext.P1 seniority list. 2. It appears that the petitioner is not promoted since there is a criminal case pending against him. Earlier, he had approached this court by filing Writ Petition No.3815/2008 which was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment. Pursuant to the directions issued therein, as per Ext.P7 order, his claim stands rejected. The reason stated for rejection is that a vigilance case is pending against him. 3. The petitioner contends that in the judgment in Writ Petition WPC 1185/2009 2 No.23777/2006 this court has held that unless charges have been framed in a vigilance case, an employee cannot be denied due promotion. In that view the petitioner has filed Ext.P8 review petition before the Government for a reconsideration of Ext.P7. The same is pending. 4. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of directing the Government to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 after hearing the petitioner. The petitioner may make available a copy of the judgment he is relying upon, before the first respondent for taking a decision in the matter. Appropriate orders shall be passed within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/