IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2009 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9863 of 2009(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P. SARASAN, DEPOT ASSISTANT GRADE-I, THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD., (COIRFED), REGIONAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA-12, RESIGING AT CHITHIRA,O.K.R.A NO..103 OLAYIL, THEVALLY.P.O, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY, CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTOR OF COIR DEVELOPMENT, COIR BHAVAN, NANDAVANAM, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE COIR MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. (COIRFED), REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN, SC, COIRFED FOR R4 SRI.GEORGE MATHEW, SC FOR R4 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.9863 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th day of May, 2009 J U D G M E N T Ext.P3 is a judgment rendered by this Court in WP(C) No.5783/2009. The petitioner in that case was an association representing the retired employees of the 4th respondent. The claim was that they should be brought under the coverage of the Self Financing Pension Fund, provided for the employees under the Co- operative Sector. This Court, by the aforesaid judgment directed that the issue should be considered by the 1st respondent. The petitioner asserts that the matter is still pending consideration and that final orders pursuant thereof have not been passed. 2. In so far as the present petitioner is concerned, he is an existing employee, who is attaining the age of superannuation on 31/05/2009. He is also urging his claim for the benefit that is urged by the petitioner in Ext.P3 judgment. He too has filed Ext.P1 representation before the Government for the same relief. But, however, no response has been received on that application also. It WP(C) No.9863/2009 -2- is in these circumstances, the present writ petition is filed. Now, the petitioner confines his relief to a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P1 representation also along with the representation which is directed to be considered in Ext.P3 judgment. 3. Having regard to the similarity of the claims raised by the petitioner in Ext.P3 and in this writ petition, I do think that there is anything unreasonable in the prayer made. This writ petition is therefore disposed of with the following directions:- That it will be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition before the 1st respondent and the 1st respondent shall consider Ext.P1 representation also with notice to the petitioner, while complying with the directions in Ext.P3 judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg