IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.K.DENESAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2006 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1928 WP(C).No. 33848 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ BIMEL K.B., STAFF NURSE, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SUPERINTENDENT, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, KOTTAYAM. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, TRIVANDRUM. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. BY GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/12/2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.K.DENESAN, J ------------------------------- W.P.(C)NO. 33848 of 2006 ------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2006 JUDGMENT The petitioner belongs to the category of staff Nurse. While working in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, she filed an application for sanction of leave without allowance from 1.7.2006 onwards. The petitioner is informed by Ext.P6 order passed by the Superintendent of the Medical College Hospital that her application has been rejected and she will have to rejoin duty with immediate effect on the ground that she is unauthorisedly absenting from duty from 2.10.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order rejecting the leave application has not been served on the petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner had completed the requisite period of service for declaration of satisfactory completion of probation and based on Ext.P5 Government order, the application of the petitioner ought to have been sanctioned. 2. The reliefs prayed for in this writ petition are the following: i) to issue a writ of certiorari and quash Ext.P6 as illegal and arbitrary; ii) to issue a declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get leave without allowance for a period of five years; iii)to issue a writ of mandamus directing W.P.(C)No. 33848/2006 2 the third respondent to serve a copy of the order rejecting Ext.P2 application; iv) to issue such other writ, order or direction, this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. I think the petitioner will have to approach the Government which is the final authority to sanction the leave or to decline the leave. The first respondent shall forward forthwith the leave application (Ext.P2) to the 4th respondent through respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner shall approach the Government against Ext.P6 order rejecting Ext.P2 leave application. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to forward Ext.P2 to the 4th respondent Government for necessary action. This shall be done within two weeks on the petitioner producing a copy of this judgment along with a copy of the writ petition. Respondents 2 and 3 shall see that Ext.P2 reaches the Government without delay. The petitioner is free to file representation before the Government in support of Ext.P2 and against Ext.P6. W.P.(C) is disposed of as above. K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE css/ W.P.(C)No. 33848/2006 3