IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF AUGUST 2011/25TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 22176 of 2011 (V) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. SURESH KUMAR.B., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, TAXES (D) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SUNIL KUMAR.P.C., SENIOR GRADE ASSISTANT, PLANNING & ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (BPE) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY ADV. SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-08-2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.22176/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- P1:- COPY OF A APPOINTMENT ORDER DTD. 2.5.1996. P2:- COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 8.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY IST PETITIONER. P3:- COPY OF APPLICATION DTD. 8.5.2006 SUBMITTED BY 2ND PETITIONER. P4:- COPY OF G.O.(P0 199/2007 DTD. 17.3.2007. P5:- COPY OF GO(RT) NO.2208/20078 DTD. 19.3.2007. P6:- COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 20.3.2007. P7:- COPY OF REMINDER DTD. 18.11.2010. P8:- COPY OF ORDER DT.D 11.3.2011. P9:- COPY OF NOTE LAW DEPARTMENT DT.D 25.8.2009. P10:- COPY OF ORDER DTD. 13.5.2011. P11:- COPY OF REPRESENTATION DTD. 21.3.2011 FILED BY THE IST PETITIONER. P12:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 21.3.2011 FILED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER. P13:- COPY OF THE NOTE DTD. 19.5.2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE tss C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No. 22176 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of August, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are presently working as Senior Grade Assistants in Government Secretariat. They commenced their career as L.D. Typists. On completion of 1 years of service as Typist/Confidential Assistant option was available for conversion as Assistant Grade-I and accordingly, they gave option. While so, Government issued pay revision order No. G.O(P) No.145/06/Fin. Dated 25.3.2006. As per the said pay revision order the post of Assistant Grade I and Assistant Grade II got merged into one category as Assistant. Subsequently, Ext.P4 G.O dated 17.3.2007 was issued. It is stated therein:- “The requests from the Typists/Confidential Assistant pending with Government for conversion to the post of Assistant after 25.3.2006 till the issuance of this order will be examined and orders regarding their placement in the seniority of Assistant will be issued separately.” WPC.No.22176/2011 : 2 : Later, as per Ext.P5 dated 19.3.2007, the petitioners were converted as Assistants. Subsequently, they filed representations before the Government requesting to fix their seniority in the cadre of Assistant as stated in Ext.P4. In fact, the request was to fix their seniority from the date of completion of 6 years in the cadre of Typist or by fixing the seniority as senior most in the entry cadre. Ext.P7 is the remainder submitted by the 2nd petitioner. Subsequently, they submitted Exts. P11 and P12 representations respectively requesting to restore their original post by cancelling the conversion. According to the petitioners if they are treated as entrants to the new merged post of Assistant as junior most assistants it would entail a huge loss for each of them. In short, according to them the order of merger would ultimately work out detrimental to them. The petitioners have raised all their grievances and contentions in Exts.P11 and P12 representations. It is on being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering Exts.P11 and P12 representations that constrained the petitioner approached this Court by filing this Writ Petition. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner WPC.No.22176/2011 : 3 : and also the learned Government Pleader. Evidently, the petitioners have raised all their grievances as also their contentions in Exts.P11 and P12 representations. Since, the said representations are pending before the Government, I do not propose to consider the claims and contentions of the petitioners on merits. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Exts.P11 and P12 representations and pass appropriate orders thereon, expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Needless to say that in case a favourable consideration of Exts.P11 and P12 would adversely effect any other person/persons they shall also be put on notice, before passing orders thereon. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge