IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2010 / 7TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 2473 of 2010(H) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHIBUMON P.R., OFFICE ATTENDANT GRADE-II, K.S.E.B.ELECTRICAL DIVISION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD (K.S.E.B. IN SHORT), REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (H.R.M.) K.S.E.B. VYDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.S. ANIL SC FOR KSEB THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 2473 of 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 27th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who is a physically handicapped person, was originally sponsored by the Employment Exchange for appointment to the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Kerala State Electricity Board. That appointment was only for a period of 179 days and on expiry of the said period, the service of the petitioner was terminated. As part of the Golden Jubilee of India's Independence, the Government issued G.O.(P) No.32/98/P & ARD dated 28.9.1998 whereby physically handicapped provisional appointees who were terminated from service on the expiry of the term of appointment were reappointed. Based on the said Government Order, the petitioner was also given reappointment. According to the petitioner, he was reappointed in a different category. He, therefore, submitted repeated representations for category change, but the competent authority to whom he had represented the matter is not taking any action on his legitimate claim, it is submitted. Exts.P7 and P8 are the representations submitted by the petitioner for redressing the aforesaid grievance. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Electricity Board W.P.(C) NO.2473/2010 2 submits that those representations were not submitted before the competent authority and that in fact, it is the Chief Engineer (H.R.M.) who is the competent authority to look into such matters. I am of the opinion that such technicalities cannot stand in the way of consideration of the request made by the petitioner. The petitioner is a physically handicapped person. Therefore, it is only proper that the authority who received Exts.P7 and P8 transmits the same to the competent authority, that is, the second respondent for consideration. Ordered accordingly. This shall be done within a period of two weeks from today. There shall be a further direction to the second respondent to consider Exts.P7 and P8 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the same from the Personal Officer. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is entitled to get the benefits flowing from Ext.P2. I think, that is a question which has to be looked into by the second respondent, while considering Exts.P7 and P8. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO.2473/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 2473/2010 JUDGMENT 27th January, 2010