IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2010 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 10178 of 2010(V) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. N.VIJAYANKUTTY (RTD) JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, S/O. LATE N.VASU ACHARY PUTHENPURA, CHITTAYAM,PANAYAM.P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM. 2. R.PRABHAKARAN NAIR (RTD) JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, PULARI, NAJARAKKAL, PERINAD.P.O., KOLLAM-691601. BY ADV. SRI.P.I.DAVIS SRI.N.B.RAJU RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRR, OFFICE OF CO-OPERATIVE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E ), INDIA ACCOUONTS DEPARTMENT, KERALA, M.G. ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. R1 TO R3 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 10178 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the retirees from the Co- operative Department. They retired from its service while working as Joint Registrars. Their grievance is with respect to the non-implementation of Ext.P1 order dated 4.2.2008. As per Ext.P1, the first respondent has issued orders directing the second respondent to allow the petitioners notional fixation in the cadre of Deputy Registrar(Higher Grade) with effect from the date on which they were promoted to the post of Joint Registrar and also to re-fix the pay in the cadre of Joint Registrar and to grant all consequential benefits. Though Ext.P1 was issued as early as on 4.2.2008, no action was so far been taken by the second respondent to implement the same. It is to be noted in this context that as per Ext.P1 itself, the second respondent was directed to report compliance with the directions to the first respondent. That apart, as per Ext.P3 letter dated 27.2.2009, the 3rd respondent has also requested the second respondent to intimate whether any action was WPC.10178 of 2010 : 2 : taken on Ext.P1 order. Despite the said direction and request no action was taken by the second respondent to implement Ext.P1. 2. The action on the part of the second respondent is highly deprecative. When Government issued a positive direction there is no reason for the second respondent either to delay or to deny the benefit arising out of Ext.P1 to the beneficiaries. In case, Ext.P1 still remains unimplemented the first respondent shall obtain explanation from the second respondent in the matter as to the reason for the delay in implementation of Ext.P1. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to implement Ext.P1 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. To Judge