Kerala High Court
WP(C)/38061/2008 of P.VIJAYAKUMARI Vs THE ASST. EDUCATIONAL OFFICER AND OTHERS on 26 December 2008
HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 38061 of 2008(F) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- P.VIJAYAKUMARI, WIDOW OF P.GOPALAN, RESIDING AT CHALLIPARAMBU HOUSE,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
FRIDAY, THE 26TH DECEMBER 2008 / 5TH POUSHA 1930
WP(C).No. 38061 of 2008(F)
--------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
---------------
P.VIJAYAKUMARI, WIDOW OF P.GOPALAN,
RESIDING AT CHALLIPARAMBU HOUSE, PARUVASSERY.P.O, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD.
BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH (SR.)
SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON
SRI.JIBU P THOMAS
SRI.P.S.APPU
RESPONDENT(S):
---------------
1. THE ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
ALATHUR, PALAKKAD.
2. THE MANAGER, AIDED UPPER PRIMARY SCHOOL, KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD.
3. K.P.KRISHNADAS, S/O.A.K.RAJAMMA,
RESIDING AT KANNAMBRA, PALAKKAD.
BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. SANDESH RAJA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 26/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
-----------------------
W.P.(C).No. 38061 2008
------------------------
Dated this the 26[th] day of December, 2008.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The petitioner states that her husband was a DrawingTeacher in the school of which the 2[nd] respondent is theManager. On the expiry of her husband on 04.06.2008, her sonmade an application for appointment, as provided under Rule51B of Chapter XIV-A KER. Petitioner states that the saidapplication was rejected by the 2[nd] respondent on the groundthat her son had not completed 18 years as on 01.01.2008.
2. According to her, thereupon, she submitted Ext.P2application for appointment for herself and that has beenrejected by the Manager stating that in the meanwhile the posthas already been filled up by appointing the 3[rd] respondent. Inview of this, petitioner has submitted Ext.P3 before the 1[st]respondent and who has forwarded the same to the Manager andExt.P4 is the reply that has been submitted complaint in thiswrit petition is that the 1[st] respondent has not taken a finaldecision in this matter.
3. Rule 51B of Chapter XIV A KER provides forappointment of dependents of employees who die in harness. Ifthe petitioner has complained to the 1[st] respondent about, therejection of her claim by the Manager, the 1[st] respondent ought WP(c).No.38061/2008
to have considered the same and passed orders thereon.Since, according to the petitioner, the 1[st] respondent hasnot passed orders on Ext.P3, the writ petition is disposed ofdirecting the 1[st] respondent to consider and pass orders onExt.P3 with notice to the petitioner and the 2[nd] respondent.This shall be done as expeditiously as possible, at any ratewithin 4 weeks of production of a copy of this judgmentalong with a copy of this writ petition.
vi/
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
WP(c).No.38061/2008