Disposed

Lakshmy T v. the State of Kerala and Others

Kerala HC3 Jun 2010WP(C)/17187/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, a High School Assistant, filed a writ petition herein claiming that she was not considered for promotion to the post of Headmistress after her temporary relinquishment expired. The court directed the second respondent to consider her petition within one month.

What did the court decide?

Directed the second respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for promotion and pass appropriate orders within one month.

Lakshmy T Vs the State of Kerala and Others — 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

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2010 / 13TH JYAISTHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 17187 of 2010(W)

PETITIONER:

LAKSHMY.T., W/O.P.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, AGED 52 YEARS, HIGH SCHOOL ASSISTANT (PHYSICAL SCIENCE) G.H.S.SCHOOL, CHAVASSERI, P.O.CHAVASSERI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADV. MR.V.A.MUHAMMED MR.M.SAJJAD

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

¶13

THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT ANNEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-1.

¶14

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, JAGATHY, TRIVANDRUM-14.

¶15

R1 & R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. DILIP MOHAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

¶18

WP (C) NO. 17187 of 2010

¶19

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2010

¶20

J U D G M E N T

¶21

The petitioner is presently working as High School Assistant (Physical Science). As per Exhibit P2 she has temporarily relinquished promotion as Headmistress from June 2009 to March 2010. It was accepted by the second respondent as per Exhibit P1. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the expiry of the said period of relinquishment the petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Headmistress ignoring her rightful claim and seniority. Feeling aggrieved by the said action on the part of the second respondent the petitioner has submitted Exhibit P3 representation before the second respondent. No action was taken despite receipt of Exhibit P3. This writ petition has been filed in the said circumstances.

¶22

A perusal of Exhibit P1 and P2 would reveal that the petitioner has temporarily relinquished promotion to the cadre of HM/AEO and that the relinquishment was

¶23

¶24

WP (C) NO. 17187 of 2010

¶25

sought, as per Exhibit P2, only for a period up to 31.03.2010. The petitioner has submitted Exhibit P3 petition raising all the aforesaid grievances and a claim for promotion with effect from 01.04.2010. Therefore, the second respondent is duty bound to consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon.

¶26

In this circumstance, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to consider and pass orders on Exhibit P3 expeditiously, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶27

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE.

¶28

rkc

Lakshmy T v. the State of Kerala and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lakshmy T v. the State of Kerala and Others

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

Joby Joseph Vs the University of Kerala

Aravindakshan Adiyodi P.K. Vs State of Kerala

Bijoy George Vs State of Kerala and Others

Sibheshkumar.a.K Vs Co-Operative Academy of Professional

Nabeesa Vs Union of India

Fr.Joy Kadukkamakkal Vs State of Kerala