AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 202 wordsP. Sam Koshy, J
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, though she was entitled for the benefit of Kramonnati as well as other benefits on
having put requisite length of service with the respondents, the same has not been given to the petitioner.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that, initially, it was granted to the petitioner, but subsequently, it was withdrawn without any reasons
assigned. He further submits that, there are other benefits also which had not been granted to the petitioner. He further submits that, the petitioner has
already made a representation to the respondent No.4 in this regard which is pending consideration and thus he seeks for direction to the respondent
No.4 to decide the same at the earliest.
The said prayer is not opposed by the State counsel.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed off with a direction to the respondent No.4 to consider and decide the representation which the
petitioner has filed at the earliest preferably within a period of 60 days from today. In addition, the petitioner would also be entitled for making a fresh
representation.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands allowed and disposed off.