IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH AUGUST 2010 / 22ND SRAVANA 1932 WP(C).No. 25549 of 2010(P) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- A.BINDU, W/O.SHAJAHAN, UPPER DIVISION CLERK, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, L.A(GENERAL), KOTTAYAM, RESIDING AT:- BISMI NIVAS, ETTUMANNOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN SMT.REVATHY P.NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., DEPARTMENT REVENUE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR LAND REVENUE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. THE PUNCHA SPECIAL OFFICER, MINI CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.25549 OF 2010(P) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of August, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. Petitioner is an Upper Division Clerk. While working as Special Village Officer at Athirampuzha, Kottayam District, she was placed under suspension by Ext.P1 order. Subsequently, though she was reinstated, disciplinary action was initiated by issuing Ext.P2 and Ext.P2(a) memo of charges. The disciplinary action culminated in Ext.P5 order of the 3rd respondent imposing punishment of barring of one increment without cumulative effect. 3. Against the said order of punishment he has filed Ext.P6 appeal which is pending consideration of the 2nd respondent. The delay in disposal of the appeal is one of the grievance raised in this writ petition. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that her salary has been withheld from 1.4.2010. She submitted Ext.P7 representation which has been rejected by Ext.P8 order passed by the 4th respondent stating that the suspension period from WPC.No.25549 /2010 :2 : 13.5.2008 to 31.1.2010 is not regularized. 4. Although it is true that the period of suspension is to be regularized, still fact remains that the petitioner is working as Upper Division Clerk in the L.A Office, Kottayam. If that be so, she is entitled to be paid her salary. 5. Therefore, in that view of the matter I dispose of tis writ petition with the following directions. The 2nd respondent before whom Ext.P6 appeal against Ext.P5 order of punishment is pending shall pass orders on the appeal as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 8 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. It is directed that in the meanwhile respondents 3 and 4 shall ensure that the petitioner is paid salary for the period she is working. Payment shall be made within 4 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WPC.No.25549 /2010 :3 :