IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2008 / 25TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1825 of 2008(P) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ R.KRISHNAVENI, W/O. GOPALAKRISHNA KAMMATH, AGED 36 YEARS, MOOPPILMADAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, NOW WORKING AS PEON, D.B.H.S., THRIKKARIYOOR, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.N.VENUGOPALA PANICKER, SC, TDB GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.A.J.VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ======================= W.P.(C) No.1825 of 2008(P) ======================= Dated this the 15th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as full time menial in the Devaswam Board High School, Thrikkariyoor. She joined service on 1.12.1997. While she was on maternity leave, the 4th respondent terminated the service of the petitioner. Apparently, pursuant to disciplinary proceedings, in the enquiry conducted, the petitioner was exonerated from the charges leveled against her and she was directed to be reinstated in service with effect from 24.3.2003 and accordingly, the 3rd respondent approved the petitioner's service with effect from 24.3.2003. Claiming that her approval of appointment should be with effect from 1.12.1997, the petitioner filed appeal before the Deputy Director of Education, Ernakulam who approved her service for the period from 1.12.1997 to 9.2.1998 and treated the period during which she was kept out of service as leave without allowances. According to the petitioner, since she was kept out of service for no fault of hers, she cannot be denied service benefits for that W.P.(C) No.1825/2008/P -2- period also. However, the 2nd respondent rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner against the order of the Deputy Director. Petitioner has now filed Ext.P6 revision petition before the 1st respondent against Ext.P5 order. Petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Ext.P6 revision petition. 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader and the standing counsel appearing for the 4th respondent. I find that Ext.P6 revision was filed as early as on 19.5.2005. In the above circumstances, it is only proper that 1st respondent disposes of Ext.P6 revision as expeditiously as possible. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider and dispose of Ext.P6 revision petition as expeditiously as possible at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4th respondent. S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE jp