IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2011 / 28TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27853 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- D.J.SUMA,AGED 54 YEARS,W/O.A.THOMAS, SUMA SADANAM,CHARUKADU,CHEMMAKKAD P.O.,KOLLAM PRESENTLY WORKING AS SUB REGISTRAR, SUB REGISTRAR'S OFFICE,ANCHALUM MOODU,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.VENUGOPALAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUES, TRIVANDRUM 680001 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION, REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEDER SRI.LIJU STEPHEN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vk WP(C).No. 27853 of 2011(F) ------------------------------------ APPENDIX ----------------- PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS --------------------------------------- EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT DTD 11-5-2006 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.9527/2003 EXT.P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD.22-12-2010 EXT.P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION DATED 22-03-2011 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS -------------------------------------- / TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE vk K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.27853 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as a Sub Registrar, Anchalum moodu, Kollam. Her complaint is that she has been denied a number of service benefits that are due to her by virtue of her seniority. According to her, she has been denied the seniority that should have been given to her while revision was made pursuant to a decision of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.9527/2003. Though she had submitted various representations setting out her grievances and pointing out the anomalies, no action was taken thereon. Finally, as per Ext.P2 order dated 22.12.2010, the petitioner's claims were rejected. The petitioner has filed Ext.P3 representation dated 22.3.2011 pointing out the discrepancies in Ext.P2 order. Though the same is pending before the second respondent, she complains that no orders have been passed thereon, till date. The petitioner, therefore seeks the issue of Wpc No.27853 of 2011 2 appropriate directions for the consideration of Ext.P3. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. She assures that Ext.P3 would be considered and appropriate orders passed thereon, without delay. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, evidenced herein by Ext.P3 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE true copy P.S.TO JUDGE css/