IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 20TH MAGHA 1932 WP(C).No. 14089 of 2010(I) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHAJITH A.K., DRIVER GROOP D ARMV SCHOOL BURNASSERY P.O. KANNUR - 670013 BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESNTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEFENCE DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. ARMY WELFARE EDUCATION SOCIETY (AWES), REPRESNTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, AWES HEAD QUARTERS INTEGRATED HEAD QUARTERS OF MOD (ARMY) BUILDING NO.202, SHANKAR VIHAR, DELHI CANTONMENT NEW DELHI-110010. 3. CHAIRMAN SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE, ARMY SCHOOL, BURNASSERY P.O.,KANNUR - 670013. 4. PRINCIPAL AND SECRETARY OF THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ARMY SCHOOL, BURNASSERY P.O., KANNUR - 670013. ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.S.G OF INDI FOR R1 SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC FOR R2,3 & 4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 14089 of 2010 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 9th day of February, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner has some grievance regarding his service conditions. According to the petitioner, after being confirmed in regular service of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner has now been directed to submit option for being engaged as a contract employee at a consolidated salary, which is less than the salary being paid to the petitioner. Respondents 2, 3 and 4 have filed a counter affidavit, wherein they have taken a technical contention that this writ petition is not maintainable insofar as no writ can be issued against the 2nd respondent in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India and the decisions of various High Courts as detailed in the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that in view of those decisions, the writ petition is not maintainable and therefore the petitioner has to file a suit for claiming the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. He seeks some time to file a suit and get interim orders in the matter. He submits that till then, the interim order granted in this case may be continued. In the above circumstances, while dismissing this writ petition, I direct that the interim order passed in this case would continue for a period of two months to enable the petitioner to file a suit and seek interim orders therein. S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/