IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34734 of 2010(N) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------------- T.K.DAVID, SECRETARY (UNDER DISMISSAL) KURUPPUMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E 257, THOTTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MEPRATHUPADY, VENGOLA P.O., PIN-683 554, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.P.JACOB, SRI.T.P.GOPAKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. KURUPPUMPADY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E 257, KURUPPUMPADY P.O., PIN-683 545, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-16. R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. BASANT BALAJI. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/12/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------- W.P(C)No.34734 of 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated 7th December, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner was an employee of the first respondent. Alleging misconduct on his part disciplinary action has been initiated against him and the domestic enquiry conducted in the said matter ultimately culminated in his dismissal from service. The petitioner has successfully challenged the same as is obvious from Ext.P9. As per Ext.P9 the punishment of dismissal was modified as reduction to the immediate lower rank of Secretary. It was further held therein that the petitioner would be entitled to get all service benefits including backwages from the date of dismissal. That apart, it was held that the petitioner would be entitled to get subsistence allowance for the period of suspension from 18.11.2002 to 20.3.2003 if not already received. On account of the delay on the part of the respondents in implementing Ext.P9 award the petitioner has preferred Ext.P11 before the second respondent. Despite the receipt of Ext.P11 the second respondent has not taken any action thereon. It is in the said circumstances that this writ petition has been filed. 2. Since the petitioner has already approached the second respondent raising his grievances regarding the inaction on the part of the WP(C).No.34734/2010 2 first respondent to implement Ext.P9 award I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions raised in this writ petition on merits at this stage. In view of the order I propose to pass in this writ petition, I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the first respondent. Since Ext.P11 is pending before the second respondent the second respondent shall consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 expeditiously, at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment with notice to the petitioner and also to the first respondent. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS // True copy // P.S to Judge