Allowed

Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC15 Feb 2010WP(C)/1327/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought temporary promotion consideration due to imminent retirement. The court held that regular promotion was impossible before retirement but directed the respondent to consider claims for temporary promotion under Rule 31(a)(1) of KS&SSR within two weeks, considering a specific circular.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the first respondent to consider the petitioners' claims for temporary promotion within two weeks.

Krishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 15TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 26TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 1327 of 2010(M)

¶4

----------------------------------------

¶5

PETITIONER(S):

¶6

-------------------------

¶7

1. T.N.KRISHNAN NAIR,JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT, COLLECTORATE,ALAPPUZHA.

¶8

2. PRABHAKARA KURUP,DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, TALUK OFFICE,KARTHIKAPPILLY,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.P.V.ASHA, SMT.VINITHA B.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

----------------------------

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT, DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

2. COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Kss

¶16

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶17

- - - - W.P. (C) No. 1327 OF 2010

¶18

- - - - Dated this the 15^th day of February, 2010

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The first petitioner is a Junior Superintendent and the second petitioner is a Deputy Tahsildar under the Land Revenue Department. They are continuing in service based on the orders pertaining to the unification of the age of retirement. They are due to retire from service on 31.3.2010. The grievance of the petitioners is that though they are fully qualified for appointment as Tahsildars and a large number of vacancies are available in that cadre, no steps have been so far taken to convene the Departmental Promotion Committee for effecting regular promotions. In the said circumstances, the petitioners also contend that, at least, their claim for temporary promotion requires consideration, taking into fact that they are to retire from service on 31.3.2010 in the light of Ext.P6 Circular No. 5328/Rules–1/99/P&ARD dated 3.6.1999.

¶21

The questions whether the petitioners are fully qualified for appointments as Tahsildars and whether they are sufficient number of vacancies for effecting promotions of the petitioners are matters which are to be considered by the

¶22

WPC.1327 of 2010

¶23

: 2 :

¶24

Government. If the contentions of the petitioners are taken as correct, there cannot be any justification for not convening the Departmental Promotion Committee for regular promotion. But there is no chance for convening of DPC for regular promotion prior to the retirement of the petitioners on 31.3.2010.

¶25

In these circumstances, there is no reason for not considering the claim of the petitioner for temporary promotion under Rule 31(a)(1) of the KS&SSR in terms of Ext.p6 Circular. In view of the fact that the petitioners are due to retire from service on 31.3.2010, there shall be a direction to the first respondent to consider the claims of the petitioners for temporary promotion within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. While considering the said claims of the petitioners, the first respondent shall also look into Ext.P6 Circular dated 3.6.1999. The petitioners will be at liberty to file representations for that behalf along with a copy of the judgment.

¶26

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/- (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)

¶28

jma

¶29

//true copy//

¶30

P.A. To Judge

Krishnan Nair v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishnan Nair 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.a.Krishna Pillai Vs R.Raja Raja Varma

Jose Wilfred Vs S.M.Vijayanand

Anoop Mohan Vs the Director of Panchayats,Trivandrum

T.Vasantha Vs Raveendran

Sreedharan T. Vs State of Kerala

K.Thankamani Vs State of Kerala