IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 5TH AUGUST 2011 / 14TH SRAVANA 1933 WP(C).No. 21319 of 2011(L) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SAJEEV.M.S., AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.SURENDRAN, EXCISE DUTY INSPECTOR, RUBBER BOARD SUB-OFFICE, BANGALORE, PIN-560 079, RESIDING AT: MAPPILASSERIL, MARARIKULAM NORTH P.O., ALAPPUZHA, PIN-688 549. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.MOHANAKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE & INDUSTRY, UDYOG BHAVAN, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-100 011. BY ASGI.SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 21319 of 2011(L) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL DATED 11/02/2011 OF THE PETITIONER FILED BEFORE THE RESPONDENT. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 24/01/2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO.824/2011. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DATED 13/06/2011 OF THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE GI.CS (DEPT. OF PER) OM NO.39/42/70/ESTS (A) DATED 15/05/1971 OF THE RESPONDENT. // TRUE COPY // TKS P.S. TO JUDGE C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.21319 of 2011 ---------------------------- Dated 5th August, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner is working as Excise Duty Inspector under the Rubber Board. Earlier, the petitioner has approached this Court raising grievances against the non-consideration of his claim for promotion by filing W.P.(C)No.824 of 2011. The said writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P2 judgment granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Rule 24 of the Rubber Board Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1961 (for short `the Rules'). Availing the liberty granted by this Court the petitioner has submitted Ext.P1 appeal dated 11.2.2011 before the respondent. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the inaction on the part of the respondent in taking appropriate action on Ext.P1. Considering the fact that this Court has granted a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in terms of Rule 24 of the Rules and availing the said liberty the petitioner has preferred Ext.P1 appeal, there is no justification for not taking action on Ext.P1. In the said circumstances, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition as also in Ext.P1 appeal this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P1 WP(C).No.21319/2011 2 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Sd/- C.T.RAVIKUMAR Judge TKS