IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 21ST MAY 2010 / 31ST VAISAKHA 1932 WP(C).No. 174 of 2010(V) ------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ 1. ASHRAF K.A, AGED 39 YEARS KAPPILANCHOTTIL HOUSE, CHERUVATTOOR,KOTHAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686691, NOW WORKING AS STAFF NURSE GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL CHANGANASSERY. 2. JOYAMMA FRANCIS, AGED 45 YEARS W/O.JOSEPH XAVIER, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE THURUTHY PO, CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 686 535, NOW WORKING AS STAFF NURSE, GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.MANU SRI.S.K.PREMRAJ SRI.ABHILASH AKBAR SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.SUMEY CHANDRAN SRI.V.S.PREJITH RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER CIVIL STATION, KOTTAYAM. 4. SUPERINTENDENT GOVERNMENT TALUK HOSPITAL, CHANGANASSERY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. SR.GOVT.PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.174/2010 APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN SEENATH BEEVI V. STATE OF KERALA REPORTED IN 2003(3) KLT 788. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 9.9.05 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPC NO.26995/05 ON THE FILES OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMETN OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN SOMUKUTTAN NAIR V. STATE OF KERALA REPORTED IN 1997(1) KLT 601. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 4.3.2010 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIOENR TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rp ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 174 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 21st day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are Staff Nurses, now working in the Government Taluk Hospital, Changanasserry. The prayer sought for in the writ petition is to direct the 2nd respondent to introduce three shift duty system in their hospital. It is stated that as at present, the petitioners are required to work for 14 hours at a stretch for six days consecutively a week. Petitioners point out that in the judgment in Seenath Beevi v. State of Kerala (2003(3) KLT 788), this Court has already declared that compelling employees like the petitioners to be on duty continuously for 14 hours a day for six days consecutively in a week is illegal and unconstitutional and that the respondents were directed to immediately redress the grievances in this behalf. It is also pointed out that when Staff Nurses of Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Kanjirappally approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.26995/05 with a similar complaint, that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment criticising the 2nd respondent for not implementing the directions in the judgment in Seenath Beevi's case and directing immediate WPC No. 174/10 :2 : remedial action. It is stated that despite all the above, there is violation on the part of the 2nd respondent in remedying their grievance. According to the petitioners, they have already filed Ext.P4 representation before the 2nd respondent and even the said representation also remains unattended. It is with this grievance, the writ petition si filed. 2. Learned Government Pleader on instruction submits that it was because of acute shortage of hospital staff including staff nurses that the authorities had to insist on the staff nurses working for longer hours. It is stated that taking note of their grievance and the directions of this Court, shift system is being introduced in the hospitals in a phased manner and that the grievance will soon be redressed. 3. Having regard to the directions issued by this Court in Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, and as these judgments contain a general declaration of law, it is for the 2nd respondent to take appropriate action, not only in so far as the petitioners in the judgments are concerned, but in so far as the whole hospitals in the State are concerned. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is required to take appropriate action in the matter of redressing the WPC No. 174/10 :3 : grievance highlighted by the petitioners. 4. Now that the petitioners' representation is still pending before the 2nd respondent, it is directed that the 2nd respondent shall take appropriate action on Ext.P4 This the 2nd respondent shall do immediately on the production of a copy of this judgment. 5. Petitioners may produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent for compliance. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp