IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 5463 of 2010(G) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- CHARUIAL T.V., AGED 29, S/O.T.J.VARUTHU, THAIPARAMBU, KUMBALANGI, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR, URBAN AFFAIRS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SECRETARY, COCHIN CORPORATION, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH-R1 AND R2 ADV. SRI.K.ANAND, SC, COCHIN CORPN. FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5463 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner's father died on 28.3.2007 while in service as Drain Worker in Circle No.4 of the Corporation of Kochi. The petitioner submitted Ext. P1 application on 20.11.2007 for appointment under the Dying in harness scheme. Initially, certain mistakes crept in, in the matter of processing the said application and after curing the mistakes, the application was forwarded to the second respondent. As per Clause 23 of the Dying in harness scheme, the first respondent is the authority competent to sanction appointment. The authorities like the third respondent are bound by such decisions in terms of Clause 23. The grievance of the petitioner is that though Ext.P1 application submitted by him to the third respondent was duly forwarded to the second respondent and he, in turn, placed it before the first respondent as early as in December, 2009, the same has not been considered so far. 2. Considering the fact that the subject matter of this Writ Petition pertains to appointment under the Dying in harness scheme and the W.P.(C) NO. 5463/2010 2 application submitted by the petitioner is already before the first respondent, who is the competent authority, there is no reason for any further delay. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider Ext.P1 application duly recommended for appointment of the petitioner, in accordance with the scheme and take a decision thereon within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5463/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5463/2010 JUDGMENT 22nd February, 2010