IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2008 / 31ST BHADRA 1930 WA.No.766 of 2007 ---------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.18469/2000 Dated 01/03/2006 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF SURFACE TRANSPORT, TPT (BRDB), B.WING, 4TH FLOOR, SENA BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL BORDER ROADS, SENA SADAK BHAVAN, RING ROAD, DELHI CANTONMENT, NEW DELHI-110 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, PROJECT VARTAK, C/O. 99 APO. 4. THE COMMANDER EASTERN BASE WORKSHOP (GREFD), C/O. 99 APO. 5. THE COMMANDANT 155 BASE HOSPITAL, C/O. 99 APO. BY ADV. SRI.S.R.AJITH RESPONDENT: PETITIONER -------------------------------- P.K.SARADA, W/O. EX.GS NO.116576, PIONEER N.K.DIVAKARAN, RESIDING AT PULIMOOTTIL THARAYIL HOUSE, KAITHA SOUTH CHETTIKULANGARA P.O., MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ W. A. No.766 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J The respondent/petitioner was informed by telegram on 28/06/1997 that her husband No.G- 116575 PNR N.K.Divakaran expired on June, 26th. Respondent's husband was a permanent employee in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF). It is her case that her husband died due to exposure to the risk of hostile climatic conditions and other reasons which had arisen during the course of his employment. Therefore, she claimed compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment only directed the respondents to consider her contentions as expeditiously as possible in any event, within a period of three months. It is for the W. A. No.766 of 2007 -2- respondents to consider all the contentions raised by her to take a decision and we see no ground to interfere with the above impugned judgment. We fail to understand as to why appeal is filed from the judgment wasting public money. Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-