IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 3285 of 2010(I) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.A.KADIJABEE, U.D.CLERK, P.W.D., N.H.DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. A.S.SONIYADEVI, U.D.CLERK, P.W.D.ROADS SECTION, NARAKKAL, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. A.VASANTHAKUMAR, U.D.CLERK, P.W.D., N.H.DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 4. M.A.SHELMY, U.D.CLERK, L.S.G.D.SECTION, ALANGAD GRAMA PANCHAYAT, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 5. J.SANTHAKUMARI, U.D.CLERK, N.H.SUB DIVISION, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. T.A.SHAJAHAN, U.D.CLERK, N.H.SUB DIVISION, NORTH PARAVUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. DR.K.P.SATHEESAN SRI.K.K.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.M.R.JAYAPRASAD SRI.P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) SRI.MATHEW SUNNY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE CHIEF ENGINEER, P.W.D.ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 3285 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are working as Upper Division Clerks in the Public Works Department. They were promoted to the said cadre in 2005. The claim of the petitioners is that they are entitled to get their date of promotion as Upper Division Clerks reassigned with effect from the date of occurrence of the vacancies during the period from 1990 to 1995. The petitioners have already submitted Exts.P2 to P7 representations before the respondent for the said purpose. The grievance of the petitioners is that no action has been taken so far on the said representations. 2. Considering the fact that the petitioners have already approached the respondent for getting reassignment of the date of promotion as Upper Division Clerks with effect from the date of occurrence of the vacancies, I think it is only proper for the respondent to consider their representations. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to the respondent to consider Exts.P2 to P7 representations filed respectively by the petitioners as W.P.(C)NO. 3285/2010 2 expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 3. It is submitted by the petitioners that in the case of similarly situated persons, the respondent has already taken a decision in their favour, as per Ext.P8. Since the petitioners claim that they are similarly situated to the petitioners in Ext.P8, it is only proper for the respondent to look in to that aspect as well at the time of passing orders, as directed above. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C)NO. 3285/2010 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 3285/2010 JUDGMENT 2nd February, 2010