IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5865 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- GANGADHARAN.T., WORKING AS DRIVER (LDV), MUNICIPAL OFFICE, MATTANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.CHANDRABABU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MATTANUR MUNICIPALITY, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, O/O.THE MATTANUR MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOCAL FUND AUDIT, DISTRICT OFFICE, KANNUR-II. 4. DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, O/O THE DIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, R3 AND R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: jma C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 5865 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Driver, Grade II(LDV) attached to the Municipal Office, Mattannur. Prior to his appointment in the service of the Local Administration Department, he had service under the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority. He was appointed in the Thiruvananthapuram Development Authority as per Ext.P1 and he had completed the period of probation. It was while so that he obtained employment through the Public Service Commission in the Local Administration Department. The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is entitled to the benefit of Rule 159 of Part I KSR and protection of pay, the said aspects were not properly considered by the respondents and that is why the respondents have passed Ext.P6 order dated 12.12.2003, rejecting his request. In support of that contention, the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to a direction of this Court in Ext.P7 judgment, Ext.P8 order was passed by the Government on 6.12.2006 in favour of two similarly situated employees. According to the petitioner, he is also entitled to get the benefit of Ext.P8 Government Order dated 6.12.2006. Thereupon, WPC.5865 of 2010 : 2 : seeking extension of the benefit flowing from Ext.P8, the petitioner has approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P9. Though he had filed WP(C) No.32825/09 it had to be withdrawn for the purpose of seeking review/cancellation of the order passed against the petitioner as early as on 12.12.2003 viz., Ext.P6. The said Writ Petition was got dismissed as withdrawn as per judgment dated 17.11.2009 for the aforesaid purpose, it is submitted. Evidently, the petitioner has, since then, approached the first respondent by filing a fresh representation dated 15.12.2009. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that the first respondent may be directed to consider and pass order on Ext.P12. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioner has approached the first respondent through Ext.P12, without making any observation on the merit as also the maintainability of the said petition, I am disposing of this writ petition directing the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P12 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A to Judge WPC.5865 of 2010 : 3 :