The Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a Municipal employee challenging the rejection of her claim for posting at the same station as her husband. The Court held that the relevant Government Orders do not apply to municipal employees.
Writ petition is dismissed.
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 ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 2ND JULY 2010 / 11TH ASHADHA 1932
WP(C).No. 20557 of 2010(T) --------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
R.MINIMOL,HEAD CLERK/REVENUE INSPECTOR, ALAPPUZHA MUNICIPALITY, ALAPPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SMT.POOJA SURENDRAN
RESPONDENT(S):
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC, J
W.P.(C).20557/2010
Dated this the 2nd day of July, 2010
JUDGMENT
Petitioner was an employee of the Cochin Corporation. By
Ext.P6 order, she was promoted as Head Clerk and was posted in Alappuzha. Claiming benefit of Exts.P4 ad P5 Government Orders, providing for posting at the same station for inter caste married couples, she made representations. In Ext.P7 judgment rendered in W.P.(C).5877/2010, this Court directed consideration of her claims. Accordingly, her claim was considered and was rejected by Ext.P8 order. It is challenging Ext.P8 order, this writ petition is filed.
2. Although in Ext.P8 order, it has been stated that Exts.P4
and P5 do not apply to the case of the petitioner, fact remains that going by the petitioner's own averments, petitioner's husband is not a person who has employment either in the State Government or Central Government or in any other Public Sector undertaking. Exts.P4 and P5 Government Orders provide
W.P.(C).20557/10
2
posting in same station for intercaste married couple, but the benefit of these orders will be available only to the employees of State Government, Central Government or a Public Sector Undertaking. On a plain reading of Exts.P4 and P5 itself, it is obvious that the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of these orders. For that reason, I see no reason to entertain the challenge against Ext.P8, even if the reasons stated therein are not appealing.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge
mrcs
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, a Municipal employee, is eligible for posting at the same station as her husband under Government Orders applicable only to State/Central employees.
Whether the rejection of her claim challenging the non-application of the Government Orders is maintainable.
R.MINIMOL
STATE OF KERALA
THE DFIRECTOR OF URBAN AFFAIRS
THE SECRETARY, CORPORATION OF COCHIN
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
