IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2011 / 11TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 4938 of 2011(N) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- M.LAILA BEEVI, NURSING SUPERINTENDENT GRADE II (RETD.), TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, MAVELIKKARA, RESIDING AT ARYATTUTHEKKATHIL, KOMALLOOR P.O., CHUNAKKARA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SRI.V.SUNIL KUMAR (PANACHAMOODU) RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-PIN-695 001. 2. ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, M.G.ROAD, P.B.NO.5607, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039. 3. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 001. 4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, ALAPPUZHA-688 001. 5. SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, MAVELIKARA-688 685. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.L.G.SURESH BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2011,ALONG WITH WPC NO. 21642 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.4938/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EE2-90821/2007/DHS DATED 21/11/2008. P2 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.EE2-25404/2009/DHS DATED 16/07/2009. P3 COPY OF THE REPORT OF TRANSFER OF CHARGE ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT. P4 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 17/12/2009 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF 2ND RESPONDENT. P5 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AF2/94285/2009 DHS DATED 28/06/2010. P6 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.GE3/20/1049 DATED 14/07/2010. P7 COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.GE3/D/1285 DATED 10/08/2010. P8 COPY OF THE ORDER OF REVERSION VIDE ORDER NO.EE2-33691/2009/DHS, DATED 25/03/2010 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT. P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30/03/2010 & 28/05/2010 IN WP(C)NO.11125/2010 OF THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT. P10 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D3-16998/09/DMOHA DATED 14/07/2010 EVIDENCING ISSUANCE OF NLC. P11 COPY OF THE LETTER NO.D3/10834/2010 DATED 09/09/2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NOS: 4938 & 21642 OF 2011 ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd October, 2011. JUDGMENT The petitioners in both these writ petitions are persons who have retired on 31-3-2010 and 31-3-2011 respectively from the Health Services Department. Both the petitioners were promoted as Nursing Superintendent Gr. II. However, while working as such they had been reverted to the post of Head Nurse. They challenged their reversion as illegal and unsustainable before this Court by filing writ petitions. The petitioner in W.P(C) 21642/2011 had filed WP(C)33133/2010 and had obtained a stay of her reversion. The petitioner in WP(C) 4938/2011 had filed WPC 11125/2010 and had obtained a stay of her reversion order. On the strength of the interim orders of stay they continued to work in the post of Nursing Superintendent Gr.II till their retirement. 2. The present complaint of the petitioners is that they have not been granted their pensionary benefits. The reason for denial of their pensionary benefits is that their retirement benefits could not be commuted since they had been reverted while in service. WPC 4938 & 21642/2011 2 3. The counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the judgment of this Court dated 20-1-2011 in WPC 37268 & 38053 of 2010 wherein, while considering similar grievances of the petitioners therein this Court has held that there was no justification for denying the pensionary benefits to such persons for the reason that they had been reverted and the orders of reversion had been stayed by this Court. This Court has observed as follows in the said judgment:- “The fact that the petitioners had obtained a stay of their reversion cannot stand in the way of disbursing their retirement benefits. If there are liabilities, it is for the respondents to fix the same after completing the procedure prescribed under law within a reasonable time. Maximum what the respondents can do is to obtain a bond as provided under Rule 116 of Part III of the K.S.R. In the above circumstances, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to see that the retirement benefits due to the petitioners are disbursed to them, if necessary, after obtaining a bond under Rule 116 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” WPC 4938 & 21642/2011 3 4. The petitioners pray for a similar relief in these writ petitions also. I do not see any reason to deny to the petitioners the said relief. 5. In the above circumstances these writ petitions are disposed of directing the second and third respondents to disburse to the petitioners the retirement benefits due to them, on condition that the petitioners furnish a bond as provided in Rule 116 of Part III K.S.R. The retirement benefits of the petitioners shall be disbursed to them within one month of their furnishing such bonds. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 4938 & 21642/2011 4