Disposed

Johnson v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Kerala HC6 Jul 2010WP(C)/20614/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a disabled KSRTC Conductor, sought continuation of light duty. Court recorded respondent's submission regarding medical board examination and extended an interim order until posting decision. Writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to appear before Medical Board; previous interim order on light duty extended until posting decision.

Johnson Vs the Deputy Superintendent of Police — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 6TH JULY 2010 / 15TH ASHADHA 1932

¶5

WP(C).No. 20614 of 2010(B)

PETITIONER:

JOHNSON, S/O.OUSEPH, OOKKEN HOUSE, PERAMBRA, KODAKKARA VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE SRI.THOMAS T.VARGHESE SMT.ACHU SUBHA ABRAHAM

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

¶13

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, IRINJALAKUDA.

¶14

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY.

¶15

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CHALAKUDY.

¶16

JOHNSON T.JOSEPH, PROPRIETOR, THEETHAYI TRADERS, MARKET ROAD, CHALAKKUDY 680307.

¶17

R1 TO 3 BY GOVT. PLEADER SHRI. T.K. VIPIN DAS

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

B.P. RAY, J.

¶20

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 20614 of 2010

¶21

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

¶22

Dated this the 12^th day of June, 2012.

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing for KSRTC, Shri. Babu Joseph Kuruvathazha.

¶25

The petitioner is a permanent Conductor of KSRTC. While in service, he became incapable to perform his duty as Conductor due to migraine with vertigo and also with coronary artery disease. He was allowed to do light duty as per Ext.P2 memo, which was extended from time to time. Thereafter, he was issued with Ext.P9 order limiting the period of light duty upto 02.08.2011. Hence this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue the present light duty allowed to him.

¶26

The learned Standing Counsel submits that if the petitioner appears before the Medical Board constituted by the Director of Health Services within six months from today and if the Medical Board certifies that the petitioner has to be given light duty, then, on the basis of the recommendation of the Medical Board, he will be given appropriate posting, in

¶27

W.P.(C) No. 20614/2010 -:Page numbers:-

¶28

accordance with law. The submission made by the Standing Counsel is recorded. Interim order passed by this Court on 28.07.2011 will continue to be in force till a decision is taken by the respondent regarding the posting of the petitioner.

¶29

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶30

sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.

¶31

¶32

W.P.(C) No. 20614/2010 -:Page numbers:-

Johnson v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Johnson v. the Deputy Superintendent of Police

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

Beevi Ammal Vs the Circle Inspector of Police

Gabriel Vs Superintendent of Police

Thankappan Vs State of Kreala

Vijayan Vs State of Kerala

Kochagasthy Vs State of Kerala

Manoj Mathew Vs State of Kerala