Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority, 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, in 1982, the first petitioner joined the service of the erst while Public Health Engineering Department, which later merged with the 1st respondent whereas the 2nd petitioner joined the service of the first respondent in 1984. Both the petitioners had their services regularised in or about 1990. Later, the petitioners retired from service in the year 2008 and 2005 respectively.
3. Taking advantage of Ext.P1 circular issued on 06.11.2006, both the petitioners made their representations on 10.12.2007 and 28.11.2008 seeking the benefit of adding their provisional service prior to the regularisation to the length of their service and accordingly settling their retirement benefits. The authorities, however, while settling the terminal benefits through Exts.P5 and P6 dated 08.01.2009 and 04.06.2008 respectively did not consider the claim of the petitioners. Under those circumstances, both the petitioners filed the present writ petition way back in 2009.
4. The learned Standing Counsel has submitted that subsequent to the issuance of Ext.P1, the Government has issued certain directions affecting the validity of Ext.P1.
5. Be that as it may, this Court does not propose to consider the writ petition on merits, inasmuch the representations filed by the petitioners, though in the distant past, are said to have been pending before the authorities.
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 authorities, 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 Exts.P2 and P4 representations of the petitioners in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. If required, the petitioners shall produce a copy of the writ petition along with a copy of the judgment before the first respondent. No order as to costs.
sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JUDGE.
rv