IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 22ND MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 4450 of 2009(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- BEENA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O.KRISHNANKUTTY, 'GOKULAM', PUNNAKKAMUGAL, ARAMADA P.O., THIRUMALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, NANADANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, NANDANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.P.G.PARAMESWARA PANICKER, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 &2 SRI.P.GOPAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W.P.(C). No.4450/2009-D ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 11th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is working as a Typist in the service of the first respondent Travancore Devaswom Board since 10/11/1990. The appointment was on daily wages. But according to the petitioner, she had been performing duties of a permanent nature and has been continuing in the work uninterruptedly for the last 18 years. It is also pointed out that one Smt.Chandrika Devi a junior most Typist on daily wage basis was regularised on 15/03/2003. Thereafter, the petitioner has also submitted request for regularisation of her service. 2. Seeking for appropriate reliefs in the matter, she had approached this Court by filing W.P.(C).No.26455/2003 and this Court directed the Board to consider and dispose of Exts.P1 and P3 representations filed by the petitioner therein, within a period of one month from the date of the judgment. Ext.P1 is the true copy of the said judgment. After considering her request, the Board passed an order rejecting the same which is evidenced by Ext.P2. 3. Meanwhile, challenging Ext.P2 order, the petitioner had filed S.L.P.(C).No.26082/2004 which was heard and disposed of by Ext.P3 order. W.P.(C) No.4450/2009 -:2:- The Apex Court observed that the interest of justice would be met if, while considering the case of the appellant therein, the respondents relax the age to the extent she has worked with the respondent-Board. The said order is dated 19/03/2007. The effect of the said direction was not considered in Ext.P4. In these circumstances, she had filed a fresh representation as per Ext.P5 seeking for a reconsideration of the matter. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first respondent may be directed to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within a time limit in the light of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 5. Heard the learned Standing Counsel for the Board also. Whether the petitioner is eligible to be considered for such benefit is a matter for the Board to decide. True that, there is a decision by the Board as per Ext.P4 but the petitioner is seeking a reconsideration of the same in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Ext.P3. 6. Therefore, it is up to the Board to take a decision in the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) ms