Allowed

C.Babu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC20 Jul 2012WP(C)/4018/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition directed the 2nd respondent, an employment authority, to expeditiously dispose of a pending representation submitted by the petitioner's son seeking reconsideration of the petitioner's termination and tenure issues.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent is directed to dispose of the submitted representation recording a report under Section 198(4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969, within six weeks.

C.Babu Vs State of Kerala — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF JULY 2012/29TH ASHADHA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 4018 of 2012 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

C.BABU, AGED 53 YEARS AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.CHELLAPPAN.K, KOLLOOR THOTTUVARAMBIL VEEDU, T.C.13/257, KUNNUKUZHI (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.N.HARI KUMAR, SRI.K.RAJESH KANNAN.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, (FISHERIES DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED, KAMALESHWARAM, MANAKKADU P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 009.

¶12

3. THE DIRECTOR, FISHERIES, FISHERIES DIRECTOR OFFICE, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶13

R1 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, S.C.

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20-07-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

W.P.(C).NO.4018/2012-B:

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶18

EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE INFORMATION REGARDING BIPOLAR DISORDER.

¶19

EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.S.PRABHA, CONSULTANT IN PSYCHIATRY, MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 30.6.2011.

¶20

EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DR.S.PRABHA DATED 3.11.2011.

¶21

EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE DATED 6.1.2011 TO SHOW THAT THE PETITIONER WAS ADMITTED IN THE MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, ON 26.10.2010 AND WAS DISCHARGED ON 6.1.2011.

¶22

EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 25.1.2011 STATING THAT 113 DAYS PERIOD OF ABSENCES WITH EFFECT FROM 2.12.09 TO 25.3.2010 IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.

¶23

EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER FROM THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 30.3.2010.

¶24

EXHIBIT P7TRUE COPY OF THE MEMO OF CHARGES DATED 3.5.2010 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶25

EXHIBIT P8TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 22.9.2010 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P9TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION BY PETITIONER'S SON MR.ARUN KUMAR TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶26

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN,J.

¶31

--------------------------------------------WP(C).No.4018 of 2012

¶32

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 20^th day of July, 2012

¶33

J U D G M E N T

¶34

The only prayer made before me by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, when this writ petition is taken up today is for the issue of a direction to the 2^nd respondent to consider and finally dispose of Ext.P9 representation, that is pending before the concerned authority. According to the petitioner, he was employed as a Peon in the service of the 2^nd respondent. Due to severe Bipolar disorder, the petitioner was not able to attend to his duties regularly. Subsequently, Ext.P7 memo of charges was issued to him. He could not respond to the memo of charges and therefore, by Ext.P8 the petitioner was terminated from service. Immediately thereafter, Ext.P9 representation has been submitted by the petitioner’s son detailing the circumstances under which the petitioner had absented himself from duty. According to the petitioner, the 2^nd respondent accepted

¶35

W.P.(C)No.4012 /2012

¶36

: 2 :

¶37

Ext.P9 treating the same as an appeal under Section 198 (4) of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Rules, 1969. However, he complains that no orders have been passed thereon till date.

¶38

I have heard Sri.George Poonthottam, who appears for the 2^nd respondent also.

¶39

In view of the limited relief sought, I am satisfied that the 2^nd respondent can be directed to be dispose of Ext.P9.

¶40

This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent or the Administrator who is in charge of the duties of the 2^nd respondent to consider Ext.P9 representation submitted by the petitioner, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

Sd/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶42

kkj

¶43

//True copy//

¶44

PA to Judge.

C.Babu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Babu 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

L.Yamuna Vs Smt.C.S.Anuja

Kannur Dist. Co-Op Bank Vs State Information Centre

Thalapalam Service Co-Op. Bank Limited Vs the State Information Commissioner, Unde

V.U.Afsal Vs Sale Officer

Sudha Sreekumar Vs Regional Transport Authority

Kerala State Private Bus Operators Co-Ordination Committee Vs Regional Transport Authority, Palakkad