IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD MARCH 2011 / 2ND CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7231 of 2011(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- M.A.ROSAMMA, (DEPUTY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER (UNDER SUSPENSION)), LOGOS BHAVAN, MUTTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. 2. TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS BHAVAN VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 014. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 7231 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 23rd day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner, a Deputy Transport Commissioner of the Transport Department of the Government of Kerala, was suspended from service on account of registration of a vigilance case against her. Although the petitioner obtained an order in W.P(C) No. 1549/2009 for consideration of her application for review of suspension, she was informed by Ext. P4 that it was decided to accept the recommendation of the Suspension Review Committee that she be not reinstated since investigation of the vigilance case against her was pending. The petitioner now submits that by Ext. P6 order, the Vigilance Department has recommended that the Suspension Review Committee, which met on 9.12.2010, reviewed the suspension of the petitioner and has decided to recommend her reinstatement in service and therefore the vigilance department has no objection in reinstating the petitioner. The petitioner submits that despite Ext. P6, the petitioner has not been reinstated in service. The petitioner therefore seeks the following relief: “Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to revoke the suspension of the petitioner and reinstate her in service within a time limit to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.” 2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also. 3. I am of opinion that when the Suspension Review Committee, as evidenced by Ext. P6 had recommended reinstatement of the petitioner in service, the Government cannot sit on it indefinitely and they are bound to pass orders considering that recommendation. Ext. P6 was issued as early as on 18.1.2011. That being so, the inaction on W.P(C) No. 7231 of 2011 -: 2 :- the part of the Government in passing further orders pursuant to Ext. P6 is unjustifiable. 4. In the above circumstances, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to pass orders on the reinstatement of the petitioner in the light of Ext. P6 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three weeks from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on suspension of the petitioner, a junior of the petitioner has been promoted to the post which she was holding and another vacancy is to arise on 1.4.2011 on retirement, which also if filled up by promoting another junior, reinstatement of the petitioner would be further delayed on that count. In the above circumstances, I direct that the vacancy which arises on 1.4.2011 shall not be filled up before orders are passed as directed above. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.