IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2010 / 3RD ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19621 of 2010(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- AMMINI.K.A, STAFF NURSE GRADE-I, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, MANDAPATHIL, NEAR FIRE STATION, PIRAVOM.P.O, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.AJITH KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, ERNAKULAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, COMMUNITY HELATH CENTRE, PIRAVOM, ERNAKULAM. GP SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19621/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT The request made by the petitioner for counting her provisional service was rejected by Ext.P5. It is challenging Ext.P5, this writ petition is filed. The reason stated in Ext.P5 is that the request was received belatedly and therefore, is not maintainable. 2. Petitioner contends that in Ext.P2 proforma, she had claimed the benefit of provisional service and the same having been allowed for higher grades, the reason stated in Ext.P5 is not sustainable. She also submits that similar request made by the other two employees was allowed by Ext.P6 and therefore, Ext.P5 is a discriminatory order. 3. The proviso to Rule 22(c) of Part-I, KSR provides that an Officer who is already in service shall be entitled to prefer a claim to get his prior service, whether provisional or regular, counted W.P.(C).19621/10 2 for any service benefit, within two years from the date of effect of this Rule, ie. 6.11.2006. If so, the application for those in service should have been filed before 5.11.2008. In this case, the application made by the petitioner, was only on 10.11.2009 and if so, the view taken in Ext.P5 that the petitioner's application is belated and therefore cannot be entertained is unassailable. 4. A reading of Ext.P6 would show that applications from the employees mentioned therein, were received on 16.7.2008 and 13.9.2008 which is well before 5.11.2008, the last date specified for making applications. In that view of the matter also, Ext.P5 cannot be faulted. Writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs