IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 24TH MAY 2010 / 3RD JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 15709 of 2010(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.USHAKUMARY, MATTAKKATTU HOUSE, PALLOM, KOTTAYAM-686 007, ASST. SECRETARY, NATAKOSA CO-OP. BANK LTD. (UNDER SUSPENSION). BY ADV. SRI.S.EASWARAN SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN (IRIMPANAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOTTAYAM. 2. THE NATTAKOM CO-OPERATIVE BANK NO.86, PAKKIL P.O., KOTTAYAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY SR.GP K.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 15709 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was working as an Assistant Secretary in the service of the second respondent, Bank. She had applied for and obtained leave because she was not well. Initially, 45 days leave was sanctioned to the petitioner. On the expiry of her leave, when the petitioner tried to join duty, she was not permitted to do so. Thereupon, she submitted a petition before the first respondent. The first respondent directed the second respondent to permit the petitioner to rejoin duty. The President challenged the said order before this court in WP(C) No.24992 of 2009. Though initially, an order of stay of the said order was granted, the interim order was not extended thereafter. The said writ petition is still pending. 2. In order to prevent the petitioner from rejoining duty, it is alleged that the President of the second respondent has placed the petitioner under suspension. Thus, she is continuing under suspension from 12.10.2009. Since six months have elapsed since the petitioner was placed under suspension, she has submitted Ext.P2 representation Wpc 15709/2010 2 before the first respondent under Rule 118(6) of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. She had earlier submitted Ext.P1 representation which is also pending before the first respondent without any order being passed thereon till date. At the same time, the petitioner continues to remain under suspension. In view of the above, the petitioner has sought for appropriate directions for an expeditious disposal of Exts.P1 and P2 representations. 3. In view of the fact that the grievances of the petitioner are pending consideration of the first respondent, it is sufficient that they are directed to be considered and disposed of on an early date. 4. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1 and P2 representations of the petitioner in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the second respondent also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk