K A MUHAMMED Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner submits that the second respondent issued Exts.P1 and P2 selection memos awarding him the work mentioned therein. It is his case that he executed the work to the satisfaction of the second respondent and that despite the same, the amounts due to him and the security deposit have not been fully paid. It is complaining of the above, the writ petition is filed.

(2.) I heard learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent.

(3.) If, as stated by the petitioner, pursuant to Exts.P1 and P2 selection memos, he has executed the work to the satisfaction of the second respondent, obviously he is entitled to be disbursed the payments due.