IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 32512 of 2009(H) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. N.GOPI, THAYYIL VEEDU, CHITTUR, PONMANA P.O., KOLLAM. 2. SOMARAJAN R., NEDEMTHARAYIL, ADINADU SOUTH, KATTILKADAVU P.O. KOLLAM - 690542. 3. A.SALAHUDEEN, KOCHUVILA PARAMBIL, VENGARA, KALLELIBHAGOM VILLAGE, THODIYOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM BY ADV. SRI.P.I.DAVIS SRI.N.B.RAJU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THRIUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD ROADS DIVISION, KOLLAM. 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695639. MS.ANU SIVARAMAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.32512 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated, this the 13th day of November, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T The petitioners claim to be seasonal ferrymen. They retired from service on 31/12/2003, 30/04/2004 & 31/12/2007 respectively. 2. Ext.P1 series are their pension verification report and it is their grievance that their entire service has not been reckoned. According to the petitioners, going by Ext.P2 Government Order, their total service is liable to be reckoned and that in a similar case, such benefit has also been given. They are relying on Exts.P3 & P4 in support of this contention. The petitioners state that by Exts.P5 (a), P5(b) & P5(c), they have already approached the 2nd respondent requesting to reckon their entire service relying on Exts.P2 to P4. 3. Having regard to the pendency of the aforesaid representations before the 2nd respondent, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider Exts.P5(a), P5(b) & P5(c) representations filed by the petitioners duly adverting to Exts.P2, P3 & P4 referred to WP(C) No.32512/2009 -2- above. Orders as above shall be passed as expeditious as possible, at any rate, within six weeks of production of a copy of this judgment, along with a copy of this writ petition. It is directed that on consideration, if the 2nd respondent finds merit in the claim raised by the petitioners, he shall make necessary proposal to the 3rd respondent. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg