ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
We heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and the learned Senior counsel for the 5th respondent in these cases.
2. The issues raised in these Original Petitions are connected and therefore the cases were heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The petitioner in O.P.No.371 of 2014 is an Executive Engineer and the petitioner in O.P.No.372 of 2014 is a Public Works Overseer, under Thiruvananthapuram Corporation, the 5th respondent. Insofar as O.P.(KAT)No.371 of 2014 is concerned, by Annexure-9 order dated 24/9/2014 the petitioner therein was placed under suspension. He challenged that order before the Tribunal in O.A.No.1886 of O.P.(KAT).Nos.371 & 372 of 2014 2 2014. The said O.A. was dismissed by Annexure-A10 order dated 1/10/2014. Immediately thereafter the petitioner filed Annexure-A11, Review Petition before the Government seeking review of the order of suspension.
4. During the pendency of that application, he again filed O.A.No.2000 of 2014 before the Tribunal. In that O.A. the Tribunal directed the respondents to obtain instructions and according to the counsel for the petitioner, O.A. is coming up for consideration in the 2nd week of November, 2014.
5. Insofar as O.P.(KAT)No.372 of 2014 is concerned, facts are similar and the Original Application filed by the petitioner, that is now pending before the Tribunal, is O.A.No.2004 of 2014, which also stands posted along with O.A.No.2000 of 2014.
6. The grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that there is inordinate delay on the part of the Government in passing order on the revision petitions filed and that there was delay on the part of the Tribunal in considering his prayer for stay of orders dated 24/9/2014 placing the O.P.(KAT).Nos.371 & 372 of 2014 3 petitioners under suspension.
7. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel. As we have already seen, the Original Applications, which are now pending before the Tribunal, were filed only on 22nd October, 2014. As is done in every other cases, the Tribunal has directed the respondent to obtain instructions in the matter and posted the cases. Therefore the question of considering the stay applications can be only after respondents are ready with instructions in the cases. Therefore, at this stage we cannot find any fault on the Tribunal as contended by the petitioners.
8. Therefore, we decline to pass any order in these Original Petitions and leave the matter open to the Tribunal to consider the grievances raised in these Original Applications as expeditiously as possible.
Subject to the above, the O.Ps.(KAT) are dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE skj ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE