IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH MARCH 2011 / 17TH PHALGUNA 1932 WP(C).No. 5308 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O.ABOOBACKER, AGED 47 YEARS, FORESTER, SUGANTHAGIRI SECTION, OFFICE OF THE FOREST RANGE OFFICER, KALPETTA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA SRI.N.SHAMSUL HUDA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPT. OF FOREST & WILD LIFE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1. 2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (ADMN), FOREST HEADQUARTERS, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 3. THE CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN COMPLEX, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN-678 002. 4. THE KOZHIKODE REGIONAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (NORTH), VANASHREE, MATHOTTAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN-673 028. GOVT. PLEADER SRI. ANTONY MUKKATH THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W.P(C) No. 5308 of 2011 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 8th day of March, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Forester working in the Department of Forest of the Government of Kerala. Pursuant to Ext. P1 memo of charges, the 3rd respondent, by Ext. P6 order, imposed on the petitioner the punishment of barring of 3 annual increment with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the same in appeal and the 4th respondent set aside Ext. P6 order by Ext. P7 and directed conducting of a fresh enquiry in accordance with law. Fresh enquiry is still pending. The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that in the meanwhile, increments due to the petitioner are not being released relying on Ext. P6 order, which is no more in existence. The petitioner therefore seeks the following reliefs: “i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to disburse the annual increment due to the petitioner with effect from November, 2004 to November, 2006 forthwith, with interest at the treasury rate with all consequential service benefits since the operation of Ext. P6 was quashed by the 4th respondent as per Ext. P7 order. ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to consider and dispose of Exts.P8 to 10 representations, forthwith.” 2. The learned Government Pleader on instructions submits that a fresh memo of charges has been issued and an enquiry has been ordered, which is pending. Therefore, according to the learned Government Pleader, no further action can be taken now to release the increments due to the petitioner. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Admittedly, Ext. P6 order imposing the punishment of W.P(C) No. 5308 of 2011 -: 2 :- barring of increments has been set aside by the appellate authority. Although a fresh enquiry has been ordered, it cannot be disputed that as on today, no punishment of barring of increment is in force. As such, I do not think that the petitioner can be denied the benefit of increments due to him, until a fresh punishment is imposed on him after completing the pending proceedings. Accordingly, to that extent, the writ petition is allowed without prejudice to the right of the respondents to continue the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The respondents are directed to release the increments due to the petitioner from time to time until a fresh punishment order, if any, is issued. Orders releasing the increments with arrears shall be issued within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/ [TRUE COPY] P.S TO JUDGE.