Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, apart from perusing the record. Since the issue lies in a narrow compass, this Court proposes to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioners, having joined the service of the respondent Corporation as Empaneled Conductors in 1993, had their services regularised in 2011, thus putting in a total service of 21 years. The grievance of the petitioner is that, disregarding their seniority, the 2nd respondent has issued Ext.P1 duty schedule giving preference to their juniors, thereby ignoring the claim of the petitioners to have preferential duties in different classes of service. Ventilating their grievance, the petitioners are said to have submitted Ext.P2 representation to the 1st respondent, which is yet to dispose it of. Thus, complaining of non disposal of W.P.(C) No. 26580/2014 -2-
Ext.P2, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that since the 1st respondent has been actively seized of the issue, it may not be necessary for this Court to address the issue on merits at this juncture.
In the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation, without adverting to the merits of the matter, this Court disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P2 representation submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C) No. 26580/2014 -3-