Dismissed

Ambika v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Jun 2014WP(C)/12933/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala directed the third respondent to consider the petitioner's representation for a part-time sweeper post and ordered the fifth respondent to pay her remuneration as per applicable circulars within two months.

What did the court decide?

The third respondent directed to consider Exhibit-P6 within two months; the fifth respondent directed to pay remuneration in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2.

Ambika Vs State of Kerala — Cooperative Societies | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2014/26TH JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 12933 of 2013 (N)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

AMBIKA, AGED 42 YEARS, W/O. NARAYANAN, CHERUMBURATH, KARALAMANNA P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT.

¶8

BY ADVS.SMT.ANU SIVARAMAN, SMT.A.RAJESWARI.

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

2. REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PALAKKAD - 678 001.

¶13

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OTTAPALAM , PIN- 679 101.

¶14

5. THE CHERPLACHERY SERVICE CO-OPERATIVEBANK LIMITED, NO. P 539, CHERPALACHERY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 679 503.

¶15

R1 TO R4 BY GOVT PLEADER SRI. RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMBIL, R5 BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

Prv.

¶18

W.P.(C).NO.12933/2013 - N:

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶21

EXHIBIT-P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 46/2000 DATED 31/10/2000 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXHIBIT-P2: TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(P) 220/05/CO-OP. DATED 23/05/2005 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF KERALA.

¶23

EXHIBIT-P3: TRUE COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 37/2010 DATED 24/07/2010 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶24

EXHIBIT-P4: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 21/05/2008 IN W.P(C) 3672/2004 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

¶25

EXHIBIT-P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 10/02/2005.

¶26

EXHIBIT-P6: TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 12/05/2011 SENT BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶27

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.A. TO JUDGE.

Prv.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J.

¶32

W.P.(C) No.12933 of 2013-N

¶33

---------------------------------------------Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2014

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner is a Part-time Sweeper working under the 5^th respondent. According to her, she has been continuously working from 2001 onwards. Initially she was being paid only 500/- per month. At present, she is being₹ paid 2000/-. As per Exhibits P1 and P2, the petitioner is₹ entitled to be paid a higher salary, which the 5^th respondent is willing to pay. The society has also sought for sanctioning the post of a Part-time Sweeper by submitting Exhibit P6. However, no orders have been passed thereon, till date. Advocate S.Nirmal appears for the 5^th respondent. The Government Pleader submits that Exhibit P6 shall be considered without further delay.

¶36

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the third respondent to consider Exhibit P6 in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon

¶37

-:2:-

¶38

W.P.(C) No.12933 of 2013-N

¶39

as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months of the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Meanwhile, the 5^th respondent is directed to pay to the petitioner her remuneration in accordance with Exhibits P1 and P2.

¶40

Sd/K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE

¶41

kkj

Ambika v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ambika 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M Venkateswaran Vs T.M Sudha

Arun K Antony Vs Mahatma Gandhi Univeirsity

K.T. Rajashekhar Vs the Transport Commissioner

Jijo Thomas Vs Anoop Varghese

Raju Sebastian Vs State of Kerala

Sreekumar.v Vs the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority Kollam