IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 28052 of 2008(M) -------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------- DR.S.LETHA, 55 YEARS W/O.R.SADASIVASN PROFESSOR OF PAEDIATRICS(REETD). KARTHIKA AMALAGIRI, KOTTAYAM-886036. BY ADV. SRI.P.BALAKRISHNAN SRI.A.RAJAPPAN (VAIKAM) RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY SECRETARY HEALTH AND FAMILY, WELFARE (B) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. PRINCIPAL, MEDICAL COLLEGE, KOTTAYAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER, SRI. A.J. VARGHESE THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 28052 OF 2008 (M) ==================== Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T Petitioner has retired as Professor in Paediatrics from the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam on 30th of April, 2008. Subsequently, on the basis of the willingness expressed by the petitioner in response to Ext.P1, Ext.P4 order was issued by the 2nd respondent appointing the petitioner as a Consultant Professor. It would appear that such appointment was made on the basis of Exts.P2 and P3 Government Orders authorising the Principal of Medical College to make arrangements to do the needful to tide over the scarcity of teaching staff in the medical college and also fixing the renumeration. 2. However, subsequent to the appointment, by Ext.P8, her appointment was terminated by the 2nd respondent on the basis of Ext.P9 that such appointment was possible against sanctioned posts. It is in this background the writ petition has been filed. 3. Since the appointment itself was on the basis of Exts. P2 and P3, I cannot find fault with the 2nd respondent in dispensing with the service of the petitioner by Ext.P8 for the reason that, as per Ext.P9 order issued by the Secretary to Government, such appointment could only be WPC 28052/08 :2 : against sanctioned post. If that be so, the challenge against Ext.P8 cannot be accepted. 4. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the petitioner has worked on the basis of Ext.P4 and on the mutually agreed terms and conditions. If that be so, petitioner is entitled to be paid for the period she has worked. Non payment of this amount is one of the complaints raised by the petitioner and petitioner is perfectly justified in the same. Since the petitioner is entitled to be paid for the work she has done, there will be a direction to the respondents to quantify and pay to the petitioner the amount that is due to her in terms of Ext.P4, for the period she has worked. This shall be done, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp