IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2010 / 27TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 18697 of 2010(J) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SRI.ANISH KUMAR.V., AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA, RESIDING AT BHAGAVATHY VILASOM, PULIYAMALA P.O., KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT-685 515. BY ADV. SRI.S.HARIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPT.OF CO-OPERATION, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCSIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA DIST.CO-OPERATIVE BANK, PATHANAMTHITTA. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. K.C. SANTHOSH KUMAR R3 BY ADV. SRI. P.C. SASIDHARAN, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO. 18697 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as an Agricultural Officer under the third respondent, District Co-operative Bank, with effect from 20.12.2002. The complaint of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given the benefit of the successive pay revisions that were implemented by the Government. According to the petitioner, his post was initially included in the pay scale of Rs.6650 - Rs.13,900/-. However, by an omission in the Government Order dated 23.4.1999, his post was omitted to be included in the said scale. Thereafter, by another G.O dated 1.3.2001, the omission was rectified. However, the petitioner complains that as per Exts.P6 and P8 which are the subsequent pay revision orders, the post of Agricultural Officer occupied by the petitioner has been relegated to a lower category. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to a higher pay scale than what is presently granted to him. 2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P9 representation setting out Wpc 18697/2010 2 his grievances which is pending before the first respondent. The petitioner complains that no orders have been passed thereon, till date. He prays for the issue of appropriate directions for an early disposal of Ext.P9. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in Ext.P9, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner also. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk