Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner 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 petitioner retired as an Inspector on 31.03.2011 from the service of the respondent Corporation. While he was in service, the petitioner is said to have performed duties in Total Literacy Programme conducted by the 4th respondent. Contending that he worked for the said programme on deputation, the petitioner went on submitting representations to the respondent Corporation to sanction duty leave so that the period of his absence could be reckoned for pensionary and other service benefits. The petitioner's grievance is that despite numerous representations, including Ext.P6, dated 12.03.2014, so far the respondent Corporation has not taken any decision. Accordingly, he has W.P.(C.) No.34899/2014 -2-
approached this Court.
3. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Corporation has submitted that since Ext.P6 representation is pending before the 1st respondent, it may not be appropriate at this juncture to adjudicate the issue on merits.
Be that as it may, in the facts and circumstances, having regard to the respective submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, disposes of the writ petition with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner's Ext.P6 representation in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv W.P.(C.) No.34899/2014 -3-