Sivan P.K vs Plantation Corporation
2021 Latest Caselaw 23131 Ker

W.P(C).26433/2021
                                   1

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 26433 OF 2021
PETITIONER/S:

     1       SIVAN P.K, AGED 51 YEARS, S/O. PADMANABHAN,
             PULLARIKKA HOUSE, MANIKYAMANGALAM P.O, KALADY -
             683574.

     2       VISWANATHAN T.A, S/O. ANANDAN, THOZHUTHUNGAL HOUSE,
             VETTILAPARA P.O, CHALAKKUDY VIA.

     3       SIVADASAN M, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O. MADHAVAN,
             NELLIPARAMBAN HOUSE, KALADY PLANTATION P.O,
             ATHIRAPALLY - 683581.

     4       SATHEESAN P.V. , AGED 48 YEARS, S/O. VIJAYAN,
             PERILAPARAMBIL, KALADY PLANTATION P.O, ATHIRAPALLY -
             683581.

     5       A.A. JESSY, AGED 49 YEARS, KILUKKAN HOUSE, MANJAPRA
             P.O, MANJAPRA - 683581.

             BY ADVS.41531
             ALEX.M.SCARIA
             SARITHA THOMAS


RESPONDENT/S:

     1       PLANTATION CORPORATION, KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM -
             686004, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

     2       THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION CORPORATION,
             KANJIKUZHI, KOTTAYAM - 686004.

             SC: ADV.N.RAJESH


THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
24.11.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P(C).26433/2021
                                         2




                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioners have a grievance that the representations submitted

by them to the second respondent as Exts.P1 to P5 claiming annual

increments and other service benefits have not been considered.

Petitioners were working under the first respondent. They were

promoted as Tapping Supervisors in the year 2015. Though they were

promoted, they have not been granted annual increments and other

benefits, in the post of Tapping Supervisor, so far. Hence, they have

submitted Exts.P1 to P5 representations before the Managing Director,

who is arrayed as the second respondent.

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned Standing Counsel for the Plantation Corporation

Adv.N.Rajesh, I am inclined to dispose of the Writ Petition itself with a

direction to the second respondent to take up, consider and dispose of

Exts.P1 to P5 representations as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,

within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

judgment, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to two

representatives of the petitioners, either physically or through virtual

mode. It is made clear that, no observation is made regarding the

entitlement or otherwise of the claim made by the petitioners. W.P(C).26433/2021

Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS JUDGE

Sbna/ W.P(C).26433/2021

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26433/2021

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND PETITIONER ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD PETITIONER ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 13.08.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE 5TH PETITIONER ALONG WITH POSTAL RECEIPT.