IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 15TH MARCH 2010 / 24TH PHALGUNA 1931 WP(C).No. 6135 of 2010(N) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. K.R.VASUDEVAN PILLAI(RETIRED EMPORIUM MANAGER,HANTEX EMPORIUM, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT),RESIDING AT CHITHIRA BHAVANAM, AROOR PO,WARD 4, PIN 688 534. 2. R.LAKSHMANAN PILLAI,(RETIRED DEPOT MANAG ER(HG), HANTEX DEPOT NO.3,CHERTHALA, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, RESIDING AT S.S. MANDIRAM, PALLIPPURAM P.O, CHERTHALA,PIN-688 541. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO SRI.S.A.ANAND RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATI VE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H232,P.B.NO.64, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001,REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H 232,P.B.NO.64, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 001. ADV. SRI. M.K.CHANDRAMOHAN DAS, SC HANDEX FOR R1,2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J ........................................... WP(C).NO.6135 OF 2010 ............................................ DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioners are retired employees of HANTEX. According to them, they were granted higher grades on completion of 25 years of service. Their pay was also accordingly revised. But, the revised pay was withdrawn, after a few months. They complain that they were also denied their sales commission. Consequently, they suffered huge financial loss. According to them, persons who were similarly placed have been given all benefits and therefore they have been discriminated upon. According to them, they have submitted Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the second respondent. However, no orders have been passed thereon till date. 2. Though the standing counsel for the first respondent had sought time to get instructions, he has not been able to get any instructions so far. He submits that if Exts.P4 and P5 representations are actually pending, appropriate orders would be passed thereon, without further delay. Even if the said representations are not pending, Wpc 6135/2010 2 the petitioners can make a fresh representation, which would be considered in accordance with law. 3. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioners to submit fresh petitions setting out their grievances in detail before the second respondent within a period of ten days from today. If such representations are submitted, the second respondent shall consider the same, in accordance with law, and shall pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, and at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioners shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the second respondent for compliance. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE lgk