AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devan Ramachandran, J
Even though the petitioner impugns Exts.P2, P4, P6 and P8 - to the extent to which financial benefits for the service rendered by her up to 05.02.2021 have been allegedly denied - her learned counsel – Smt.P.A.Jenzia, concedes that her client has preferred Ext.P12 Statutory Revision Petition before the 1st respondent – State of Kerala, invoking the provisions of Rule 92 of Chapter XIVA of the Kerala Education Rules (KER).
Smt.P.A.Jenzia, therefore, alternatively pleaded that said Revision be directed to be taken up and disposed of by the competent Authority of the Government, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
In response, Smt.Mary Beena Joseph – learned Senior Government Pleader, submitted that, if the petitioner only requires Ext.P12 to be taken up and disposed of by the competent Authority of the Government, there does not appear to be any legal impediment in doing so; however, praying that this Court may not make any affirmative declarations in her favour in this judgment and leave it to the said Authority to take an apposite decision, as per law.
In the afore circumstances, I order this writ petition and direct the competent Authority of the Government to take up and dispose of Ext.P12 Statutory Revision of the petitioner, after affording her an opportunity of being heard; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.