The petitioner challenged an order denying repatriation to the Law Department. He was confirmed in the Rural Development Department in 1989 and retired in 2005; thus, the court held the question of repatriation did not arise and dismissed the petition.
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 B.P.RAY
MONDAY, THE 21ST NOVEMBER 2011 / 30TH KARTHIKA 1933
WP(C).No. 28771 of 2004(A)
----------------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
-------------------
M.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, PROJECT OFFICER (ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER), INTEGRATED TRIBAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, ATTAPPADY).
BY SRI.K.R.B. KAIMAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV.SRI.B.UNNIKRISHNA KAIMAL
RESPONDENT(S):
--------------------
1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, CONVENOR, DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE (LOWER AND HIGHER) FOR LAW DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2. THE COMMISSIONER FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
R1 & 2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. V. VIJULAL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
svs
W.P.(C). NO.28771/2004
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
svs
...........2/-...
...2...
WPC. NO.28771/2004
RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE.
svs
B.P. RAY, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.28771 of 2004
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 21st day of November, 2011.
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
following prayers:
(1)a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside Ext.P16 order.
The petitioner has been confirmed in the Rural
Development Department with effect from 01.07.1989. He retired from Service in the year 2005. Therefore, question of repatriation does not arise. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.
sd/- B.P. RAY, JUDGE.
rv
W.P.(C). No. -:2:-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a retired project officer is eligible for repatriation from the Rural Development Department to the Law Department with consequential promotion benefits.
Whether the impugned order should be quashed or a writ of mandamus issued for repatriation.
M. Radhakrishnan Nair
The Secretary to Government
The Commissioner for Rural Development
B.P. Ray
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
