IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2007 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1928 WP(C).No. 8952 of 2007(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ VINOD BENZ T.GEORGE, THAYPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIMBA P.O., PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.KURIAN SRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE PROJECT OFFICER, ITDP, ATTAPPADY, PALAKKAD. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD. 3. COMMISSIONER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, LMS COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING K.K.DENESAN, J ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 8952 of 2007 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 16 th day of March, 2007 JUDGMENT The petitioner, while working as Peon in the office of the first respondent, was placed under suspension as per Ext.P1 order passed by the second respondent on 1.2.2002. The date of Ext.P3 is 21.11.2005. It appears that the petitioner had filed an application before the third respondent to reinstate him in service, as is evident from Ext.P2 representation dated 15.2.2002. This was followed by Ext.P3 representation dated 21.11.2005. But no order seems to have been passed by the respondents regarding the request of the petitioner for reinstatement in service. 2. Now that, 5 years have elapsed, it is necessary that the second respondent shall undertake a review of the order of suspension and after evaluating the prevailing circumstances, appropriate decision taken. W.P.(C)No.8952/2007 :2: 3. Heard the Government Pleader for the respondents. 4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider the question of reinstatement of the petitioner in exercise of the power conferred on him under Rule 22 of the Kerala Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1960. Review of the order of suspension is necessary in the light of the Government orders issued on the subject. Hence, a time limit of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment is fixed for conducting the review and passing appropriate orders. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment and a copy of the writ petition before the third respondent for information and compliance. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE css / W.P.(C)No.8952/2007 :3: s W.P.(C)No.8952/2007 :4: