IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 21ST JULY 2011 / 30TH ASHADHA 1933 WP(C).No. 10506 of 2011(K) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- KERALA PATHRAPRAVARTHAKA PENSIONERS ASSOCIATION, TC 41/939(A), PUTHENCOTTA, MANACAUD.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009, REP.BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MANGALATHUKONAM KRISHNAN. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL K.NARENDRAN SRI.K.K.DHEERENDRAKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, INFORMATION & PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, INFORMATION & PUBLIC RELATIONS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MATHEW VADAKKEL THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 10506 of 2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.7/93/P.R.DATED 16.8.1993 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (P.R.C) DEPARTMENT EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF G.O.(P) NO.2/94/P.R. ATED 5.1.94 ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION (P.R.C) DEPARTMENT EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 7.7.08 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 5.8.08 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE GENERAL SECRETARY OF THE PETITIONER ASSOCIATION EXT.P5 : TRUE COPY OF PETITIONER'S REPRESENTATION DATED 5.1.09 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND THE CHIEF MINISTER EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 6.2.09 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN W.P.(C).3981 OF 2009 EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 13.4.09 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE ADVOCATE GENERAL EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 9.11.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CHIEF MINISTER, WITH COPY TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF REMINDER DATED 27.1.11 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION DATED 9.2.2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT ADDRESSED TO THE PETITIONER EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 16.2.11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ADDRESSED TO THE PE6TITIONER (True copy) P.A. To Judge ANTONY DOMINIC, J ....................................................... W.P.(C).10506/2011 .............................................. Dated this the 21st day of July, 2011 JUDGMENT 1.Petitioner is an Organization by name 'Kerala Pathrapravarthaka Pensioners Association'. 2.They have been demanding for inclusion of their representation in the Committee for implementation of a Pension Scheme introduced by the Government of Kerala, copies of which are produced as Exts.P1 and P2. When their representation was remaining unattended, they approached this Court by filing W.P. (C).3981/2009. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P6 judgment dated 6.2.2009 directing the first respondent State, to consider their representation. 3.Accordingly the representation was considered and by Ext.P7, they were informed that their request could not be considered then for the reason that the Committee was already constituted and its tenure was for three years. Almost at the end of the tenure of the said Committee, petitioner again repeated its W.P.(C).10506/11 2 request by filing Ext.P8 representation before the first respondent and Exts.P10 and P11 are the replies they have received. These communications disclose that their representation was considered by the Pension Managing Committee constituted by the Government for the implementation of Exts.P1 and P2 Scheme and that the said Committee rejected their request. It is challenging Exts.P10 and P11 the writ petition is filed. 4.As already stated, the request of the petitioner is for inclusion in the Pension Managing Committee constituted by the Government for implementation of Exts.P1 and P2. Though the request was made to it and the first respondent was ordered to consider their representation, it is the very Committee which considered the request of the petitioners and turned down the same, as is seen from Exts.P10 and P11. In my view, the aforesaid course of action is erroneous and the first respondent which has the power to constitute the Committee, should by itself have considered the representation. W.P.(C).10506/11 3 5.In view of the above, Exts.P10 and P11 deserve to be set aside and I do so. The first respondent is directed to consider Ext.P8 representation of the petitioner for induction of their representation into the Committee. This the first respondent shall do as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs