IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2008 / 14TH SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 19400 of 2008(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.MOHANAN PILLAI, WATCHER, CODE NO. YC.0401, OIL PALM INDIA LTD., YERROR ESTATE, BHARATHIPURAM P.O., ANCHAL,KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SRI. JESSEL VINOHAR RODRICKS SRI.K.JITHIN SMT.V.J.SAFEENA SRI. S. SANJITH SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE MANAGNG DIRECTOR, OIL PALM INDIA LTD., REGISTERED OFFICE XIII -354, OLD STAR THEATRE ROAD, P.B. NO. 15, KOTTAYAM SOUTH P.O. 686 039, KOTTAYAM. 3. SENIOR MANAGER (ESTATE) OIL PALM INDIA LTD., BHARATHIPURAM P.O., ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.K.NANDAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR FOR R2 SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI FOR R2 SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.ANIL D. NAIR FOR R2 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19400/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 5th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner was appointed as Worker in the Oil Palm India Limited. In the year 2001, he applied for appointment as Watchman/Messenger/Attender, but was not selected. He filed O.P.No.11718 of 2001 in this regard. The said writ petition was dismissed. He carried the matter in appeal and the Writ Appeal was also dismissed. He moved the Apex Court. By Ext.P1 judgment, delivered on 23.2.2007, the Apex Court held that selection of respondents 4 and 5 in the earlier writ petition was illegal. The Apex Court also directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner and thereupon, Ext.P3 order was issued appointing the petitioner as Watcher. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner claims service benefits from the date on which Sri.R.Muraleedharan Pillai and Sri.K.Muraleedharan Pillai, respondents 4 and 5 respectively in O.P.No.11718 of 2001 were appointed. The petitioner has submitted a W.P.(C).19400/2008 2 representation before the respondents claiming the said benefit. Ext.P4 is a copy of the said representation dated 25.9.2007. 2. When the writ petition came up for admission today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner's request in Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 3. I have heard the learned counsel on either side. In view of the fact that the respondents are yet to take a decision on the request made by the petitioner in Ext.P4, I do not deem it fit and proper to consider the petitioner's case on the merits at this stage. In these circumstances, the second respondent is directed to consider Ext.P4 and pass orders thereon, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. Orders on W.P.(C).19400/2008 3 Ext.P4 shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs