IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2009 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 WA.No. 2641 of 2009() --------------------- {IN WPC.31521/2008 OF THIS COURT} .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE WPC ------------------------------------------ 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM. (CHAIRMAN, MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD) 2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, M.C.H. CENTRE, KARITHURA. 3. THE MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN (THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM). 4. SRI.N.K.PREMACHANDRAN, MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER IN THE WPC ------------------------------------ SHEEJA S, NURSE, M.C.H. CENTRE, KARITHURA, KOLLAM. BY ADV.SRI.OMPRAKASH THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A.No.2641 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed challenging Exts.P4 and P5 orders. As per the impugned orders, the petitioner, who was engaged by the Mining Area Welfare Board as a Nurse, on contract basis at the M.C.H.Centre, has been discontinued. 2. The petitioner was engaged originally in the year 2004 and was being continued thereafter till 25.9.2008. It is seen from Ext.P5 resolution that the petitioner was discontinued only on account of certain complaints. We find from the pleadings that the complaints are only oral complaints. Be that as it may, the emerging picture is that the discontinuance of the petitioner is not because of the non-requirement of the W.A.No.2641 of 2009 :: 2 :: service of a nurse, but because of certain complaints against the petitioner. If that be so, as rightly held by the learned single Judge, the procedural requirements of such discontinuance on account of the complaints should have been followed, lest, such action should visit the petitioner with adverse consequences. Admittedly, no such procedure has been followed. It is also not in dispute that similarly situated nurses engaged on contract basis are still continuing. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned single Judge that the petitioner should be reinstated, of course, without prejudice to the liberty to the competent forum to take action against the petitioner, if required, in accordance with law. 3. Learned Government Pleader apprehends that the direction of the learned single Judge that the petitioner should be continued till similarly situated persons are retained, would stand in the way of such action being taken against the petitioner. We are afraid, W.A.No.2641 of 2009 :: 3 :: there is no basis for such apprehension. Continuance of the petitioner is subject to the outcome of the action for misconduct, if any, taken against the writ petitioner. With the above clarification, the writ appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (KURIAN JOSEPH) JUDGE Sd/- (C.T.RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE SK/- //true copy// P.S. to Judge.