M.A.Joy Vs. State of Kerala

M.A.Joy vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 31, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1012393

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1012393
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Ravindran
Decided On: Dec 31, 2012
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

M.A.Joy

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....case registered against him in exercise of the power conferred on it under rule 10(1)(b) of the kerala civil services (classification, control and appeal) rules, 1960. the reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:- a. to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading up to the issuance of ext.p2 to the extent it concerns the petitioner and quash the same. b. to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue as secretary, thaliparamba municipality till his retirement on 30.11.2012.2. the petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012. in the light of the said fact, the second relief prayed for by him cannot be granted and he cannot be reinstated in w.p(c).no.27951 of 2012 -:2:- service. in such circumstances i am of the opinion that the petitioner should move the government seeking appropriate reliefs regarding the manner in which the period during which ext.p2 operated should be treated having regard to the fact that this court had by order passed on 26.11.2012 deemed it fit to direct that status quo shall be maintained for a period of two weeks within which time, as stated earlier, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. leaving open the petitioner's right to move the government as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. p.n.ravindran, judge. ahg. p.n.ravindran, j.--------------------------- w.p.(c).no.27951 of 2012 ---------------------------- judgment 31 t december, 2012

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012 10TH POUSHA 193 WP(C).No. 27951 of 2012 (T) --------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------- M.A.JOY, SECRETARY, THALIPARAMBA MUNICIPALITY, KANNUR. BY ADVS.SRI.S.RAMESH BABU (SR.) SRI.P.RAVINDRA NATH SRI.K.P.KAMALAKARA BABU SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD RESPONDENTS: -------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

2. THE SECRETARY LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001. BY G.P. SMT.LOUZI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX (WPC 27951/2012) PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1- TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SERVICE BOOK OF THE PETITIONER. P2- TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 20 11.2012. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS - NIL TRUE COPY pms P.S. to Judge P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

----------------------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27951 of 2012 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of December, 2012 JUDGMENT The petitioner, who was the Secretary of Thaliparamba Municipality, has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P2 Government order dated 20.11.2012 whereby the Government placed him, along with others, under suspension pending investigation into a vigilance case registered against him in exercise of the power conferred on it under rule 10(1)(b) of the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. The reliefs sought in the writ petition are as follows:- A. To issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records leading up to the issuance of Ext.P2 to the extent it concerns the petitioner and quash the same. B. To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to permit the petitioner to continue as Secretary, Thaliparamba Municipality till his retirement on 30.11.2012.

2. The petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 30.11.2012. In the light of the said fact, the second relief prayed for by him cannot be granted and he cannot be reinstated in W.P(C).No.27951 of 2012 -:2:- service. In such circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioner should move the Government seeking appropriate reliefs regarding the manner in which the period during which Ext.P2 operated should be treated having regard to the fact that this Court had by order passed on 26.11.2012 deemed it fit to direct that status quo shall be maintained for a period of two weeks within which time, as stated earlier, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Leaving open the petitioner's right to move the Government as aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.

--------------------------- W.P.(C).No.27951 of 2012 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 31 t December, 2012

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2012 Same Parties M.A.Joy vs State of Kerala Same Subject MRTP Same Judge Honourable Mr.Justice P.N.Ravindran