IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN TUESDAY, THE 13TH FEBRUARY 2007 / 24TH MAGHA 1928 WP(C).No. 32484 of 2006(P) ----------------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. K.GOPALAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TRAFFIC, QUILANDY. 2. SREEDHARAN KURUNGOTT, SUB INSPCTOR OF POLICE, IGP OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, SIT. 3. E.RAGHUVAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRACH, KANNUR. 4. K.MOHANDASAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOORACHUNDU. 5. K.V.RATNAKARAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SPECIAL BRANCH, KANNUR. 6. PRABHAKARAN V.K., R.P. S.I., SHORNUR. 7. RAVEENDRAN K., SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, BADIADUKA POLICE STATION. 8. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DIG OFFICE, KANNUR, SIT. 9. K.SURENDRAN, ADDL. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KATHIROOR, KANNUR. 10. P.V.KUNHIRAMAN, ADDL. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.SIBY MATHEW SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR W.P.(C) NO.324/2006 RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.LAKSHMI RANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/02/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) 32484/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1:- NEWS ITEM PUBLISHED IN RASHTRA DEEPIKA DAILY, DT.10.11.2006. EXT.P1(a):- COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO.37/2000/HOME DT.22.2.2000. EXT.P2:- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS SO.NO.93/2000 KR.DT.1.7.2000 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P3:- COPY OF THE SO NO.74/2004 KR DT.29.5.04 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4(a):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY GENERALS OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM, DT.8.12.05. EXT.P4(b):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY GENERALS OF POLICE, ERNAKULAM DT.3.5.06. EXT.P4(c):- COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, TRICHUR DT.21.6.06. EXT.P5:- COPY OF THE PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST, PUBLISHED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER, DT. 2.8.06 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P7:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT.10 -06 SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P8:- COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DT.11.12.06 IN WP(C) NO.32484/06 PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT. EXT.P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER MODIFYING THE REGULARIZATION OF PROMOTEE SI'S FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.1.2000 TO 1.12.2003. EXT.P9(a):- COPY OF THE ORDER DT.10.1.97 ISSUED BY 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P10:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT. SUBMITTED BY THE 6TH PETITIONER . /TRUE COPY/ tss K.K.DENESAN, J. ========================= WP(C).No.32484 OF 2006-P. ========================= Dated this the 13th day of February, 2007. J U D G M E N T The petitioners 1 to 8 are Sub Inspectors of Police and the petitioners 9 and 10 are Additional Sub Inspectors of Police. As per Ext.P1 certain additional posts were created in order to get over the problem of stagnation. However, in Kannur Range there was delay in implementing Ext.P2. It so happened that those in the other Ranges got promotions earlier than that of the petitioners. This has resulted in loss to the petitioners in the matter of working out and enjoying all other service benefits. Ext.P7 representation was accordingly filed by the petitioners before respondents 2 and 3. This Court directed the respondents as per interim order passed on 11- 12-2006, to consider the request of the petitioners made in Ext.P7 and to pass orders in accordance with law. Pursuant to the interim order of this Court, Ext.P9 proceedings were issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range. Counsel for the petitioners submits that a WP(C).No.32484 of 2006. 2 substantial portion of the grievance of the petitioners stand redressed as per Ext.P9 order. 2. Since some more issues have to be solved and the grievances of the petitioners on that score are to be redressed, the 6th petitioner has filed Ext.P10 representation before the 2nd respondent. Similar representations have been filed by other petitioners also, it is submitted. In the above circumstances the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners will be satisfied, for the time being, if this Court directs the 2nd respondent to consider Ext.P10 on merits and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 3. I have heard the Government Pleader for respondents 1 and 2. 4. Since Ext.P9 order was passed by the 3rd respondent, it would be advisable that, the said respondent looks into the further grievance of the petitioners as highlighted in Ext.P9. The petitioners will file fresh representations before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kannur Range in addition to the filing of the copies of Ext.P10 before that respondent. Hence the writ petition is disposed of directing the 3rd respondent to look WP(C).No.32484 of 2006. 3 into the grievance of the petitioners which they will bring to the notice of that respondent through representations similar to the one filed as Ext.P10 and to take appropriate decision within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE. kvs/-