Rejection of the application preferred by the petitioner for repatriation to the parent department, vide Ext. P8, is under challenge in this writ petition.
2. Petitioner was originally appointed as a driver in the second respondent/Kerala Khadi and Village Industries Board. Subsequently, pursuant to another round of selection and 'advice memo' issued by the Public Service Commission, the petitioner was appointed as Driver in the 3rd respondent/Rural Development Department and the petitioner joined in the said department. In the course of further proceedings, the petitioner himself found uncomfortable under the third respondent for reasons of his own, who wanted to go back to the parent department and it was accordingly, that an application was submitted for repatriation. According to the petitioner, he is entitled for such repatriation as per the mandate under the relevant Rules specified in Part II KS & SSR. But the W.P.(C) No.3270 of 2013 : 2 :
request made by the petitioner in this regard was considered and rejected as per Ext. P8, which in turn is under challenge.
3. When the matter came up for consideration on 05.02.2013, the following interim order was passed :
“Admit. Issue urgent notice returnable in tend days to respondents 1 and 3 to 5. Sri. R.S. Harikumar, learned standing counsel, takes notice for the second respondent.
There will be an interim order staying the confirmation of the petitioner in the Rural Development Department until further orders, if as on today he has not been confirmed in service by an order passed under Rule 24 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958.”
4. The petitioner has now come up with I.A No. 12849 of 2013, also producing a copy of the representation preferred by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent, stating that, he has changed his mind and that the petitioner does not intend to have repatriation to the second respondent, simultaneously praying for reckoning of service rendered by him in the second respondent, to have granted service benefits accordingly. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner has abandoned W.P.(C) No.3270 of 2013 : 3 :
the challenge raised against Ext. P8, residual relief is only to cause Ext. P9 to be considered and disposed of within a reasonable time.
5. In the above circumstances, the challenge raised against Ext. P8 is repelled. The third respondent is directed to consider Ext. P9 and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, (JUDGE) kmd