Disposed

S.v.Sheeja v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Apr 2016WP(C)/5893/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this employment dispute concerning MGNREGS scheme, the High Court directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation within two months after hearing the petitioner and other relevant authorities, ensuring due process in the statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to consider the petitioner's representation (Exhibit P10) within two months after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent.

S.v.Sheeja Vs State of Kerala — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:-

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL 2016/18TH CHAITHRA, 1938

¶5

W.P.(C).No.5893 of 2016 (J)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):-

¶7

S.V.SHEEJA, PERUMTHOOR MELE VEEDU, NADOORKOLLA, AMARAVILA P.O., NOW WORKING AS ACCOUNTANT CUM DATA ENTRY OPERATOR, KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARODE P.O.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):-

¶10

--------------------------1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶11

RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER, MAHATHMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT SCHEME (KERALA), PUNARJANI, TC 26/1333(2), PANAVILA JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

BLOCK PROGRAMME OFFICER, MAHATMA GANDHI NATIONAL RURAL EMPLOYMENT GUARANTEE SCHEME, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 695 001.

¶13

KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECETARY, KARODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT - 695 001.

¶14

THE SECRETARY, KARODE GRAMA PANCHAYAT, KARODE P.O., NEYYATTINKARA TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRIC - 695 001.

¶15

R1 TO R3 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.M.A.FAYAZ. R4 & R5 BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVEENDRAN PILLAI.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

WP(C).No.5893 of 2016 (J)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶20

P1: TRUE NOTICE NO.A2/750/10 DATED 28/12/2010 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

¶21

P2: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.A2/750/10 DATED 24/1/2011 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT

¶22

P3: TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR CONTRACT STAFF DATED 1/1/2015 EXECUTED BY THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶23

P4: TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION FOR RENEWAL SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE JOINT PROGRAMME CO-ORDINATOR DATED 28/1/2016

¶24

P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(P) NO.852/12/LSGD DATED 29/3/2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT

¶25

P6: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.2655/EGSN/15/REGS DATED 6/1/2016 ISSUED BY RURAL DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER

¶26

P7: TRUE COPY OF LETTER NO.A3/101/16/MGNREGS DATED 29/1/2016 ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT

¶27

P8: TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTRAR SIGNED BY THE PETITIONER

¶28

P9: TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.B4-5946/15 DATED 29/1/2016 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT.

¶29

P10: TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 10/2/2016.

¶30

P11: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DATED 22.3.2016.

¶31

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:-

¶32

R5(A) TRUE COPY OF THE DEED OF CONTRACT FOR EMPLOYMENT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.01.2015 TO 31.12.2015.

¶33

R5(B) TRUE COPY OF THE GO NO.952/2012 DT.29.03.2012.

¶34

R5(C) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.01.2016.

¶35

Vku/[ true copy ]

¶36

K. Vinod Chandran, J

¶37

--------------------------------------W.P.(C) No.5893 of 2016-J

¶38

---------------------------------------Dated this the 07th day of April, 2016

¶39

JUDGMENT

¶40

The petitioner confined the prayer only for

¶41

consideration of Exhibit P10. Heard learned Counsel on both sides.

¶42

There shall be a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibit P10, after hearing the petitioner and the 4th respondent, within a period of two months from today. Appointment if at all made, shall be subject to the consideration of the representation as directed herein above. It is also made clear that the petitioner is also entitled to appear under Exhibit P11 notification, if she is qualified so to do.

¶43

The writ petition is disposed of as above. No costs.

¶44

Sd/-

¶45

K.Vinod Chandran Judge.

¶46

vku/-

¶47

[ true copy ]

S.v.Sheeja v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.v.Sheeja 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

T. Rajeshwari Vs K. Padmakumar

Dr.G.Jeeja Vs University Grants Commission & Others

V.D.Mary Vs the State of Kerala

Santhi Sukumaran Vs the District Educational Officer, Thiruvalla

M/S. Ceat Limited Vs State of Kerala

A.Mini Vs Union of India