IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON THURSDAY, THE 15TH JANUARY 2009 / 25TH POUSHA 1930 WA.No. 2383 of 2008() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.5509/2007 Dated 20/02/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ A.P. NARAYANAN, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, L.S.G.D SECTION, VAZHAKKAD GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AND P.W.D ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2383 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 15th January, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant/petitioner is aggrieved since he is not re- deployed to his parent department-Public Works Department. It is submitted that though several similarly situated Assistant Engineers, some of whom are juniors to the petitioner are sent back to the parent department, the petitioner has not been favoured with such a treatment. The petitioner has taken several contentions regarding cut off date, seniority etc. The petitioner approached this court on earlier occasions also and pursuant to the direction in the judgment in W.P.(C) 26169/06, the Government passed Ext.P11 order. It was observed by the Government that the petitioner was one among the juniormost Assistant Engineers for re-deployment to Local Self Government Department. Orders on re-deployment of the petitioner had already been passed on 5.7.2006, prior to the induction of the newly recruited P.S.C. hands and on that ground the representation was rejected. Hence the writ petition. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition WA NO.2383/08 2 mainly holding that the petitioner cannot bank on subsequent grievance. It was also held that the fact that the petitioner had not joined duty pursuant to Ext.P2 order cannot be a ground for the purpose of making a request for retention in Public Works Department. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner has come up in appeal. 3. The main contention of the petitioner/appellant is that his claim under Ext.10 Government Order has not been considered, mainly on two aspects; (1) It is the policy of the Government to depute newly recruited P.S.C. hands and recall the seniors to the parent department and (2) in any case, Ext.P10 order had protected those Assistant Engineers of the Public Works Department and Water Resources Department who had not joined duty as on that date, viz., 17.11.2006. The petitioner joined the Local Self Government Department only on 15.1.2007. Learned Government Pleader points out that the delay occasioned since the representation filed by the petitioner was pending and hence as per Ext.P3 circular, until the representation was disposed of, the petitioner could not have been deployed. WA NO.2383/08 3 We are afraid, the grievance of the petitioner has not been considered in the proper perspective. In Ext.P10, it is not stated that the case of the Engineers whose representations are pending would be excluded from the cut off date for the retention. It is not as if the petitioner sought for leave or abstained from joining duty, so as to prolong the deputation to the Local Self Government Department; but it is a situation where he was relieved only subsequently. True, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Pleader, the delay was occasioned because of the pendency of his representation. But what is stated in Ext.P10 Government Order is only to the effect that people who have not joined as on 17.11.2006 were entitled to retention in the parent department. If that be so, the case of the petitioner requires reconsideration. In the process, the various other contentions urged by the petitioner also can be advanced before the Government, so that the Government will be in a position to advert to those contentions also and pass a proper order. 4. In the above circumstances, we set aside the judgment under appeal and quash Ext.P11 with a direction to the WA NO.2383/08 4 Government to consider the matter afresh with notice to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders adverting to the contentions taken by the petitioner and referring to the observations made in this judgment. This shall be done within two months from the date of production of a copy of the judgment. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE. P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE. tgs KURIAN JOSEPH & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.2383 of 2008 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 15th January, 2009.