A.K Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.:— The petitioner was appointed as a UPSA, with effect from 05.06.2000, in a school under the management of the 5th respondent. He was retrenched from service with effect from 15.07.2005, consequent to a division fall. Thereafter, he was once again appointed as a Clerk with effect from 01.04.2011 It is not in dispute that the said appointment was also approved by the respondents. Thereafter, pursuant to a dispute raised by a Rule 51A claimant, the petitioner was retrenched from service, in January, 2013. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached the Educational Authorities with a prayer to include him in the list of retrenched Teachers, for the purposes of protection and deployment to the parent school, as and when a vacancy arose in future. The said request of the petitioner found favour with the Deputy Director, who issued Ext.P4 letter, recommending the case of the petitioner for inclusion in the list of retrenched Teachers, to the Director of Public Instructions. Thereafter, by Ext.P5 order dated 05.04.2016, the 2nd respondent accorded permission for including the petitioner's name in the list of retrenched Teachers, based on the Government Order dated 29.01.2016 In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner is that, notwithstanding Exts.P4 and P5, the 3rd respondent has not passed formal orders including the petitioner in the list of retrenched Teachers.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. The learned Government Pleader would submit, based on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 3 respondent that, pursuant to the Government Order dated 29.01.2016, clarifications have been sought from the Government for the purposes of considering the petitioner's claim. It is stated that, it is only because no clarification has been issued by the Government, that the 3 respondent has not been able to pass any formal orders. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made across the bar, I find that, inasmuch as Ext.P5 order of the 2 respondent has not been modified or cancelled by any subsequent order of the higher authorities, it would be incumbent upon the 3 respondent to pass consequential orders based on Ext.P5 order of the 2 respondent. Accordingly, I dispose the writ petition with a direction to the 3 respondent to pass consequential orders pursuant to Ext.P5 order of the 2 respondent, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The petitioner shall produce the copy of the writ petition along with a copy of this judgment, before the 3 respondent, for further action.