IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 34553 of 2008(L) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- V.A. ASOKAN, VILLAGE EXTENSION OFFICER GRADE - I (HIGHER GRADE), BLOCK DEPARTMENT OFFICE, ALANGAD, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ SMT.K.AMMINIKUTTY RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERLA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR,ERNAKULAM. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ----------------------------- W.P.(C) NO: 34553 of 2008 ----------------------------- Dated this 24th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Heard Sri.N.Raghuraj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Government pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is presently working as Village Extention Officer Grade I (Higher grade). While he was working as Village Extension Officer in the Block Development Office at Parakkadavu in Ernakulam district, the District Collector, Ernakulam placed him under suspension with effect from 25-9-2004. The petitioner was placed under suspension for the reason that he was involved in a criminal case. The petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide judgment delivered on 9-11-2006. By Ext.P1 order passed on 09.11.2007, the District Collector reinstated the petitioner in service and also directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as eligible leave. Aggrieved by Ext.P1 to the extend it directs that the period of suspension shall be treated as eligible leave, the petitioner has filed Ext.P2 representation before the Commissioner for Rural Development. In this writ petition the petitioner prays for a direction to the Commissioner for Rural Development to consider Ext.P2 appeal and pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court. wpc:34553 of 2008 2 3. The question whether the direction by the third respondent District Collector in Ext.P1 to treat the period of suspension as eligible leave is liable to be interfered with or not, is primarily a matter for the appellate authority to decide. The petitioner has in Ext.P2 representation dated 5-9-2008 moved the Commissioner for Rural development seeking variation of Ext.P1 to the extend it relates to regularisation of the period of suspension. Since Ext.P2 representation is pending before the second respondent, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the second respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation and pass orders thereon after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. This shall be done within three months from the date on which the petitioner produces a certified copy of this judgment. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE bps