IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2009 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 1039 of 2005() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN OP.21787/1998 Dated 07/08/2003 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP. ------------------------------- V.D.MARIA JOSEPH, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.DEVASSY, WATER METER READER RTD., ELOOR PANCHAYATH, ELOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.MOHANAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP. --------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY LOCAL ADMINISTRATION, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE SECRETARY, ELOOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ELOOR. ADV. SRI.P.M.SEBASTIAN SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN FOR R3 SMT.S.INDU FOR R3 R1 & 2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 1039 of 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 6th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The appellant was a Water Meter Reader working under the Eloor Panchayat. He claimed promotion to the post of Peon with retrospective effect from 1985. The said claim was considered by the Government and allowed by Ext.P7 dated 18.8.1998. The Government ordered that he shall be promoted to the post of Peon with effect from the date from which his immediate junior was promoted. Since there was no junior to the appellant, the said order could not be implemented. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by Ext.P7, the writ petition was filed. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, but declared that the appellant should be treated as having been appointed with effect from 22.3.1985. Dissatisfied with the said declaration, the writ appeal was filed. 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that even the benefit granted by the W.A.No. 1039 of 2005 2 learned Single Judge has not been extended to him by the respondents. There may be a direction to remedy this grievance of him. 3. We heard the learned Government Pleader on this point. The learned Government Pleader disputes the said submission made on behalf of the appellant. 4. The claim of the appellant to get the benefit flowing from the judgment under appeal must be considered and settled by the competent authority among the respondents, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellant may submit a representation along with a copy of this judgment highlighting his claims. Those claims shall be considered and settled in accordance with law, by the competent authority among the respondents, within the time limit mentioned above. 5. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm W.A.No. 1039 of 2005 3