This writ petition challenges an order limiting wages to subsistence allowance during a suspension period for the petitioner's deceased husband. The one-line order directs the first respondent to consider the petitioner's representation on merits within two months. No substantive legal proposition is formulated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JANUARY 2008 / 26TH POUSHA 1929
WP(C).No. 1917 of 2008(C)
PETITIONER:
LATHIKA.L, W/O LATE K.ACHUTHAN, PUTHANVILA VEEDU, CHEMMANTHOOR, PUNALOOR P.O., KOLLAM DISTRICT.
BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.V.K.SATHYANATHAN
RESPONDENTS:
BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BEJOY CHANDRAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
V.GIRI, J
W.P.(C).1917/2008
Dated this the 16th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioner’s husband was posted in the Walayar check post as Sales Tax Inspector in 2002. He was placed under suspension under Government Order dated 12.9.2002 in connection with an inspection conducted by the Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau. He was reinstated in service on 3.1.2004. While so, he died on 4.7.2005, in harness. By Ext.P1 order, the disciplinary proceedings which was initiated against the petitioner’s husband was consequently dropped. By Ext.P2, the period of suspension was directed to be treated as duty. Wages were limited to the subsistence allowance already paid, instead of the required pay and allowance. According to the petitioner, Ext.P2 is illegal and unsustainable to the extent of limiting the wages to the subsistence allowance already drawn. The entire period of suspension should have been regularized treating the same as regular for all purposes, according to the petitioner. Petitioner also makes reference to Ext.P3, which indicates that certain other amounts were due to K.
W.P.(C).1917/2008
2
Achuthan, petitioner’s husband, consequent upon the pay fixation. Pointing out these aspects, and seeking review of the aforementioned offending portion of Ext.P2, Ext.P4 comprehensive representation has been filed by the petitioner before the first respondent.
V.GIRI, Judge
mrcs
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the first respondent is directed to reconsider the representation filed by the petitioner on merits regarding the regularization of suspension and pay fixation.
LATHIKA.L
STATE OF KERALA
V. GIRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
