IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 1917 of 2008(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ LATHIKA.L, W/O LATE K.ACHUTHAN, PUTHANVILA VEEDU, CHEMMANTHOOR, PUNALOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT., GOVT. SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. JOINT COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COMMERCIAL TAXES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).1917/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioner’s husband was posted in the Walayar check post as Sales Tax Inspector in 2002. He was placed under suspension under Government Order dated 12.9.2002 in connection with an inspection conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. He was reinstated in service on 3.1.2004. While so, he died on 4.7.2005, in harness. By Ext.P1 order, the disciplinary proceedings which was initiated against the petitioner’s husband was consequently dropped. By Ext.P2, the period of suspension was directed to be treated as duty. Wages were limited to the subsistence allowance already paid, instead of the required pay and allowance. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is illegal and unsustainable to the extent of limiting the wages to the subsistence allowance already drawn. The entire period of suspension should have been regularized treating the same as regular for all purposes, according to the petitioner. Petitioner also makes reference to Ext.P3, which indicates that certain other amounts were due to K. W.P.(C).1917/2008 2 Achuthan, petitioner’s husband, consequent upon the pay fixation. Pointing out these aspects, and seeking review of the aforementioned offending portion of Ext.P2, Ext.P4 comprehensive representation has been filed by the petitioner before the first respondent. 2. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader, writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P4 on merits and take a decision thereon, after hearing the petitioner, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Ext.P4 shall also be treated as request on the part of the petitioner to change that portion of Ext.P2 by which the pay drawn by the employee was limited to the subsistence allowance already drawn. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs