The petitioner herein is the wife of late Sri.G.Padmakumar.

Sri.Padmakumar, while working as a Conductor in the 1st respondent Corporation, passed away on 16.05.2021. She has approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P7 order as per which, her husband was removed from service and for incidental reliefs.

2. The petitioner contends that Ext.P7 order is vitiated by serious procedural irregularities and was passed in gross violation to the principles of natural justice. She contends that being aggrieved by the illegal removal of her husband she has preferred Ext.P8 appeal before the 2nd respondent. It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking to quash Ext.P7 and for incidental reliefs. Though various other reliefs are sought, the prayer in the writ petition is for an expeditious consideration of Ext.P8 appeal with due notice.

3. I have heard Sri.N.Sasidharan Unnithan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the limited request of the petitioner is for a direction to the 2nd respondent to consider and pass expeditious orders on Ext.P8 appeal. The learned standing counsel submitted that there cannot be any impediment in considering the said request.

5. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8, as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or her authorised representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of three months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE

IAP

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 719/2022 PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.R.DIS.PL11/17452/08 DATED 18.10.2013 ISSUED FROM THE KSRTC.

Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 8.8.2018 OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND SUBMITTED TO THE

2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ISSUED FROM SUSHRUTHA MEDICAL CENTRE, POTHENCODE.

Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE TREATMENT CERTIFICATE OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND DATED 9.7.2021 ISSUED FROM THE GOVERNMENT MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE

5.6.2021 OF THE PETITIONER'S HUSBAND ISSUED FROM THE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CORPORATION.

Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL HEIRSHIP CERTIFICATE DATED 27.10.2021 ISSUED BY THE TAHSILDAR, NEDUMANGAD.

Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL 11/000806/2018 DATED 01.10.2018 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 30.12.2021 OF THE PETITIONER SENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 5.8.2020 IN WP(C) NO.5317/2020 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 6.1.2021 IN WA NO.25/2021 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT.

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:

NIL