IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 15TH BHADRA 1933 WP(C).No. 24259 of 2011(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DALLAS N.P., LINE MAN GRADE I, ELECTRICAL SECTION, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VAZHAKULAM, MUDIKKAL P.O., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SMT.RESMI G. NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, VYDYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. 2. THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, ELECTRICAL SECTION, VAZHAKULAM, PERUMBAVOOR-683542. BY S.C.SRI.K.S.ANIL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 24259 of 2011(F) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.8.2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL TKS // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.24259 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 6th September, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Line Man Grade I under the Kerala State Electricity Board. Earlier, on account of non-regularization of the period of leave without allowances availed by the petitioner he was overlooked in the matter of promotion to the post of Overseer. It is contended that, in the meanwhile, several of his juniors were promoted to the said post. Subsequently, the respondents refused to consider his claim for promotion citing the pendency of a disciplinary proceedings. The said disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner culminated in the penalty of barring of one increment with cumulative effect. Challenging the said penalty the petitioner had already preferred a statutory appeal and it is still pending. Feeling aggrieved by the non-consideration of the said appeal the petitioner moved this Court by filing W.P.(C)No.23588 of 2011 and the said writ petition was disposed of as per judgment dated 31.8.2011 with a direction to the first respondent therein to consider and pass orders on the said appeal within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Subsequently, the petitioner filed Ext.P1 representation. As per Ext.P1, the petitioner requested the first respondent to consider his claim for promotion to the post of Overseer, taking into account the WP(C).No.24259/2011 2 fact that he was overlooked in the matter of promotion and several of his juniors have already been promoted to the said post. Ext.P1 is still pending before the first respondent. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions as also the entitlement of the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 and pass appropriate orders thereon expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS