Disposed

Manojkumar M.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Kerala HC20 May 2022WP(C)/16400/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Kerala High Court disposed of a writ petition filed by a former KSRTC employee seeking treatment of his leave period as duty. The court directed the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders within six weeks after affording an opportunity of hearing. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent to consider petitioner's representation, afford opportunity of hearing, and pass appropriate orders within six weeks.

Manojkumar M.C. Vs the Chairman and Managing Director — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

WP(C) NO. 16400 OF 2022

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 20^TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1944 WP(C) NO. 16400 OF 2022

¶6

PETITIONER/S:

¶7

MANOJKUMAR M.C., MADATHIL HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY, OLLUR, THRISSUR 680 306.

¶8

BY ADVS. K.P.SATHEESAN (SR.) P.MOHANDAS (ERNAKULAM) K.SUDHINKUMAR S.K.ADHITHYAN SABU PULLAN GOKUL D. SUDHAKARAN

¶9

RESPONDENT/S:

¶10

THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 024.

¶11

SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

WP(C) NO. 16400 OF 2022

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

The petitioner states that he was working as a Reserve Conductor in the KSRTC and was posted at Thevara Depot in Ernakulam District. He met with an accident on 17.05.2019 and had to undergo prolonged treatment. He applied for casual leave for a period of seven days from 18.5.2019, which was sanctioned. After the culmination of his treatment, he reported for duty on 1.10.2020. However, no posting was granted. Left with no alternative, the petitioner resigned on 22.7.2021. The petitioner asserts that the respondent

¶17

is bound to treat the period from 1.10.2020 to 22.7.2021 as duty for all purposes. Stating all these aspects, the petitioner is stated to have submitted Ext.P3 representation before the respondent. Seeking expeditious consideration and disposal of the representation, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶18

I have heard Sri. K.P. Satheesan, the learned Senior Counsel as instructed by Sri. P. Mohandas, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶19

After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this

¶20

writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of by issuing the following directions:

¶21

WP(C) NO. 16400 OF 2022

¶22

¶23

a) There will be a direction to the respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P3, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorised representative.

¶24

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

¶26

This writ petition is disposed of.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶29

JUDGE

¶30

¶31

WP(C) NO. 16400 OF 2022 4

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16400/2022

¶33

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE ODER ISSUED BY THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (VIGILANCE), K.S.R.T.C AS NO. VLD 4/39083/2019 DATED 30.10.2021. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RESIGNATION LETTER GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 22.07.2021. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 25.04.2022.

¶35

RESPONDENT(S) EXHIBITS : NIL

Manojkumar M.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manojkumar M.C. v. the Chairman and Managing Director

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

T.D. Stephen Vs Saradha Muraleedharan

Praveen V.C. Vs Beena John Arakkal

P.U. Baby Vs Musthafa Kamal

Urmila Gopan Vs T.R.Shamsudheen

Sunil Kumar T. Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)

Sachin George Vs the Cochin Institute of Science and Technology