Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 1 docs
Sasidharan vs State Of Kerala on 1 January, 2007

User Queries
View the actual judgment from court
Kerala High Court
Sheela Stephen vs The Commissioner Of Land Revenue on 6 December, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                               PRESENT:

                        THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

           TUESDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/29TH AGRAHAYANA 1933

                                     WPC.No. 34037 of 2011 (D)
                                     -----------------------------------


PETITIONER(S) :
----------------------

             SHEELA STEPHEN, REVENUE INSPECTOR
             SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LAND ASSIGNMENT NO.1)
             CHEMBUKKAVU, THRISSUR-20.


             BY ADVS.SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY
                         SMT.N.SANTHA
                         SRI.K.A.BALAN
                         SRI.PETER JOSE CHRISTO
                         SRI.S.A.ANAND


RESPONDENT(S) :
-------------------------

         1. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,
             COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE,
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.

         2. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND
             REVENUE, COMMISSIONERATE OF LAND REVENUE
             THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN-695 033.

         3. DEPUTY SUPERINTNEDENT OF POLICE,
             VIGILANCE AND ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU,
             SHORANUR ROAD, THRISSUR-680 001.

             BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. SHAJI RAJ T.K.


           THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20-12-2011,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:




ns

WPC.No. 34037 of 2011

                                          APPENDIX


PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS :
------------------------------------

EXHIBIT P1          : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LRT-2-60602/07(3) DATED 6/12/2008 OF THE
                     ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.

EXHIBIT P1(A) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPENDED PROVISIONAL
                      SENIORITY LIST OF HEAD CLERK/REVENUE INSPECTOR/VILLAGE
                      OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-1-2004 TO 31-12-2005.

EXHIBIT P2          : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.E.5-2007/2007 DATED 30/11/2007 OF THE
                      ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.

EXHIBIT P3          : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.SS1.17459/08 DATED 1/5/2008 OF THE
                      DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THRISSUR.

EXHIBIT P4          : COPY OF GOVT. LETTER NO.2992/E1/09/VIG. DATED 19.08.2009.

EXHIBIT P5          : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.L.R.D2-20749/2008 DATED 14/10/2009 OF THE
                      COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.

EXHIBIT P6          : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 7/2/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE
                      PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7          : COPY OF THE ORDER NO.LR(T)2-2002/2011(2)DATED 31/1/2011 OF THE
                      COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE.

EXHIBIT P7(A) : COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE APPENDED REVISED
                      PROVISIONAL SENIORITY LIST OF HEAD CLERK/REVENUE
                      INSPECTOR/VILLAGE OFFICER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1-11-1998
                      TO 31-12-2005.


RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL




                                                           / TRUE COPY /



                                                           P.A. TO JUDGE




ns



                 K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J

                  = = = = = = = = = = = =
                  WP(C).No.34037 of 2011.
                  = = = = = = = = = = = =

            Dated this the 20th December, 2011.

                      J U D G M E N T

The petitioner is working as a Revenue Inspector. She is fully qualified and eligible to be promoted to the next higher post of Deputy Tahsildar/Junior Superintendent. Her complaint is that overlooking her superior claim, her juniors have been promoted above her. Initially, when Ext.P2 order was passed, she was informed that she had been overlooked due to a mistake and that the mistake would be corrected. However, while the petitioner was expecting the mistake to be corrected, she happened to be suspended from service by Ext.P3 order. Subsequently, she was reinstated in service by Ext.P5 and is continuing in service. No memo of charges has been served on her. The investigation in a vigilance case registered against her is still continuing. Since no final report has been submitted in the vigilance case, no charge has been framed by the Court. For the WP(C).No.34037/2011.

2 above reason, the petitioner contends that there is absolutely no impediment in granting her the promotion that is legitimately due to her. She also places reliance on the decision of this Court in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(4) KLT 149.

2. The petitioner has submitted Ext.P6 representation detailing her grievances and claiming the promotion that is due to her. Ext.P6 is pending before the first respondent. However, the petitioner complains that no orders have been passed thereon till date. The petitioner apprehends that other persons who are juniors to her would be promoted, overlooking her claims. The petitioner therefore seeks the issue of appropriate directions to protect her claim for promotion.

3. I have heard the learned Govt. Pleader also.

4. In view of the fact that Ext.P6 is pending consideration of the first respondent, it is only appropriate that the grievances of the petitioner are considered by the said authority in the first instance.

WP(C).No.34037/2011.

3

5. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the grievances of the petitioner set out in her representation, evidenced herein by Ext.P6, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment or before any further promotions of the petitioner's juniors are made, whichever is earlier and also in the light of the dictum laid down in Sasidharan v. State of Kerala reported in 2008(4) KLT 149. It is made clear that if the petitioner is found to be entitled for promotion from an anterior date, all the consequential benefits that flow from such promotion would also be restored to her.

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-