IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 16082 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ S.MOHAMMED YUSUF, RETD.PLANT ENGINEER, MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., RESIDING AT T.C.2/581(3), CRESCENT, RAJIV GANDHI NAGAR, MEDICAL COLLEGE.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-11. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI SRI.R.SREEDHARAN NAIR SMT.SABINA JAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, INDUSTRIES DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., WALAYAR, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATION, MALABAR CEMENTS LTD., WALAYAR. ADV. SRI.B.S.KRISHNAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 & 3 SRI.K.ANAND (A.201) FOR R2,3 SMT.LATHA KRISHNAN FOR R2,3 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.16082 OF 2010 (I) -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Heard both sides. 2. Petitioner is an employee of the respondent company. Though under the directions of the Government, the company issued orders placing the petitioner under suspension. Subsequently, again under the directions of the Government, Ext.P3 order was issued by the company revoking the suspension and reinstating the petitioner in service. Thereafter the petitioner retired from service in 2003 and disciplinary action was not continued against him. His grievance is that despite all the above, the period of suspension has not been regularized so far. 3. It would appear that seeking regularization of the period of suspension, the petitioner has made a representation to the Government and on which Government called for report from the company and the matter stands at that stage. 4. Grievance of the petitioner essentially is that the period of suspension is not regularized. The company being the employer, WPC.No. 16082/2010 :2 : this is a mater which the company has to consider and pass an order. Admittedly company has not passed any order in this respect. Therefore I dispose of this writ petition directing the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the issue of regularization of the suspension period of the petitioner and orders thereon shall be passed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 3 weeks from the date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/