Disposed

M.Dharmarajan v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Mar 2007WP(C)/1461/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought promotion to Upper Division Clerk, aggrieved by delay and promotion of juniors. Court directed respondent to consider pending representation and dispose orders within two months, affording hearing opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Directing the Director of Panchayaths to consider the pending representation for promotion within two months and afford the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.

M.Dharmarajan Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 20TH MARCH 2007 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1928

¶5

WP(C).No. 1461 of 2007(Y)

PETITIONER:

M.DHARMARAJAN, S/O. KUNJAYATHI (LATE), AGED 43 YEARS, L.D.CLERK, OZHUR GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 313.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/03/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

K.K. DENESAN, J.

¶18

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) No. 1461 OF 2007 Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶19

Dated this the 20^th March, 2007

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is a Lower Division Clerk working

¶22

in a Grama Panchayat. He feels aggrieved by the delay in considering his case for promotion to the post of Upper Division Clerk. It is contended that his juniors were promoted as per order passed on 27-7-2001 and his

¶23

claim has been illegally overlooked. Ext. P6

¶24

representation filed by the petitioner requesting to promote him to the post of U.D. Clerk is pending with the 1^st respondent.

¶25

Heard counsel for the petitioner and Govt.

¶26

Pleader for the respondents.

¶27

In the nature of the contentions raised, it is

¶28

only appropriate that the 1^st respondent takes up for consideration Ext. P6 and pass orders in accordance

¶29

with law as expeditiously as possible. Ordered accordingly. A time limit of two months from the date

¶30

WPC No. 1461/2007 -2-

¶31

of receipt of a copy of the judgment for passing orders on Ext. P6 is hereby fixed. The petitioner shall be afforded an opportunity of being heard before Ext. P6 is disposed of.

¶32

K.K. DENESAN JUDGE

¶33

jan/

M.Dharmarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Dharmarajan v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deputy Director of Education Vs M.E.George

T.v.Ramani Vs Cochin Port Trust & Another

M.P.Leelamma Vs M.a.Mony

V.L.Pradeep Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Jamaludheen. C.A. Vs the Chief Conservator

Babu.B. Vs State of Kerala & Another