IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6112 of 2010() ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.S.PRATHEESH, WORK SUPERINTENDENT, PUNALUR MUNICIPALITY, PUNALUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, O/o.THE CORPORATION OF KOLLAM, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KOLLAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU-R1 TO R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 6112 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is presently working as Work Superintendent in the Corporation of Kollam. The main relief sought for by the petitioner is for a direction to the second respondent to regularise his pay in terms of Exts.P9 and P10 Government Orders in the light of Rule 159 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules and for consequential benefits. Earlier, finding that there is substance in the contention of the petitioner, his pay was fixed in terms of the request made by him by the Secretary, Punalur Municipality as per Ext.P5. However, that was objected to by the Local Fund Audit and the excess pay drawn by him was ordered to be recovered. In the circumstances, raising the said contentions and even the ground of hostile discrimination, the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 representation before the first respondent. 2. Evidently, the petitioner has taken up all the above contentions including the contentions based on Exts.P9 and P10 Government Orders as also his entitlement under Rule 159 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules in Ext. P11 dated 4.8.2008. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the W.P.(C) NO. 6112/2010 2 receipt of Ext.P11, no action has been taken so far. In the circumstances, considering the fact that Ext.P11 representation has been submitted by the petitioner as early as on 4.8.2008 and that the grievances raised by the petitioner are matters which can be looked into by the first respondent, I think this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ordered accordingly. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 6112/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 6112/2010 JUDGMENT 24th February, 2010