IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR THURSDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2010 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 9113 of 2010(L) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- RAJAKUMAR.U., S/O. UMAMAHESWARA IYER, AGED 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT T.C.50/370(4), MARUTHOORKADAVU, KARAMANA.P.O., KALADY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, WORKING AS JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR GRADE I, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, KODUVAYOOR, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR SRI.LEO GEORGE SRI.K.P.SUJESH KUMAR SRI.K.N.SASIDHARAN NAIR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, PALAKKAD. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P. (C) No. 9113 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 25th day of March, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Junior Health Inspector Grade I in the Health Services Department, presently working in Palakkad District. Claiming the benefits of the Government Order granting benefits to inter caste married employees, the petitioner has approached the respondents through Ext.P4. The grievance of the petitioner is that without considering the request made as per Ext.P4 in the light of Ext.P1 order, the respondent have prepared a draft transfer list. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7 draft list, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 appeal. The limited prayer of the petitioner is that the respondents may be directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P8 appeal. 2. In fact, Ext.P7 itself provides raising of objections/grievances against the provisional transfer list. Therefore, there is no reason for the respondents for not considering Ext.P8 appeal and to take appropriate action thereon. Considering the fact that Ext.P8 appeal is preferred WPC.9113 of 2010 : 2 : as provided under Ext.P7 itself, it will only be appropriate to the second respondent to consider Ext.P8 immediately. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass order on Ext.P8 appeal expeditiously. In case Ext.P7 provisional list is not already finalized, the claim of the petitioner raised as per Ext.P8 appeal shall be looked into and orders shall be passed thereon, before the finalization of Ext.P7. Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jma //true copy// P.A. To Judge