IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5244 of 2010(E) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.R.C.THAMPAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN NAIR, 'KARTHIKA' KANGANNUR, P.O.ATHOLI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, RETIRED, CIVIL SURGEON, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANADU. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (A) DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE-PRC-C-DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5244 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from the Health Department on superannuation on 31.5.2008, while working as Civil Surgeon. He is aggrieved by Ext.P4 order which was passed as early as on 27.12.2007. According to the petitioner, he is entitled to the benefit of clause (7) of Ext.P1 Government Order, but the same was not considered while issuing Ext.P4. Raising the said grievance, the petitioner has filed Ext.P6 representation before the third respondent. Ext.P6 is still pending, it is submitted. It is in the said circumstances that this Writ Petition is filed. 2. A perusal of Ext.P6 would reveal that the petitioner has approached the third respondent raising his grievance against Ext.P4 in time. However, despite the receipt of Ext.P6, no orders have been passed thereon till date. As noticed hereinbefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that his entitlement to the benefit of Clause (7) of Ext.P1 was not looked into while issuing Ext.P4 order. Taking into account the fact that Ext.P6 is W.P.(C) NO. 5244/2010 2 pending before the third respondent since 2008, it is only appropriate that the same should be considered expeditiously. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to file a representation before the third respondent, along with a copy of this judgment, supplementing the contentions raised in Ext.P6, within a period of two weeks from today. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5244/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5244/2010 JUDGMENT 17th February, 2010