IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).No. 5666 of 2006(Y) ------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. ANITHAKUMARI P., JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, PHC AZHIYOOR, KOZHIKODE. 2. BINDU T.V., W/O.MADHUSOODANAN, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, P.H.C OLLUKARA, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE(C) DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE, TRIVANDRUM. R1 & R2 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. P. NANDAKUMAR. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.5666/2006-Y: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4127 TO 28/01 DTD. 11/07/2001. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE ORDER G.O.(MS).NO.246/2005/H & FWD DTD. 30/09/2005. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.1. TO THE R.1. DTD. 16/12/2005. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE P.2. TO THE R.1. DTD. 10/12/2005. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT: EXT.R2.A: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 19/11/2001 OF THE RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. Prv. ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 5666 OF 2006 (Y) ===================== Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioners were Junior Public Health Nurses appointed on a provisional basis. The first petitioner rendered service from 10/2/92 to 20/10/2000. The second petitioner rendered service from 6/12/95 to 22/6/96 and from 5/9/96 to 19/12/2000. 2. They sought regularization and continuance in service by filing an original petition before this Court. The Original Petition was dismissed. Writ appeal was also dismissed. Along with 17 others, they moved the Apex Court and secured Ext.P1 order, where the Apex Court ordered their regularization. It was also ordered that in the event services of any of the petitioners have been terminated during the pendency of the proceedings before the Apex Court, though no salary need to be paid to them for that period, they shall be given benefit of continuity of service in the matter of regularization. Ext.P1 order of the Apex Court was rendered on 11/7/2001. Pursuant to Ext.P1, Director of Health Services issued Ext.R2(a) order dated 19/11/2001 allowing the beneficiaries of Ext.P1 order to continue in service. WPC No. 5666/06 :2 : 3. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the notification issued by the PSC, petitioners applied for the post of Junior Public Health Nurse, got selected and were advised for appointment on 2/2/2001 and 28/9/2001 respectively. Accordingly, they joined service also. Later Ext.P2 order dated 30/9/2005 was issued regularising the services of the beneficiaries of Ext.P1 order of the Apex Court, which inter alia provided that those who have got regular appointment through PSC will be treated to have entered service with effect from the date of advice of PSC. In so far as others are concerned, it was stated that the period of provisional service prior to termination will count for service benefits w.e.f. 9/5/95. 4. In so far as the petitioners are concerned, prior to Ext.P2, they were working on regular basis. Pursuant to the PSC advice, their seniority was fixed with reference to the date of the advice, while their colleagues, who were also party to Ext.P1 are concerned, their seniority has been reckoned w.e.f. 9/5/95. This precisely is their grievance. 5. The justification offered by the Government is that the WPC No. 5666/06 :3 : benefit of regularization and fixation of seniority as ordered in Ext.P2 cannot be to the advantage of the petitioners for the reason that although they were parties to Ext.P1 order, their services were not regularised as directed therein. It is argued that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, their seniority can only be from the date of advice and not from any date prior thereto. 6. Though, strictly speaking, the respondents cannot be faulted, there is an element of injustice in this case. As already seen, colleagues of the petitioners, who were unsuccessful in getting regular appointment got their services regularised pursuant to Ext.P1, Ext.R2(a) and Ext.P2 w.e.f. 9/5/95. On the other hand, for the only reason that the petitioners were meritorious and could secure regular employment through PSC, now they are put at a disadvantageous position. 7. In my view, this certainly is a matter for the Government to reconcile and remedy their grievance. It is seen that the petitioners have already filed Exts.P3 and P4 before the 1st respondent. WPC No. 5666/06 :4 : 8. Having regard to the pendency of Exts.P3 and P4 and without expressing anything on the merits of the claim, it is directed that the 1st respondent shall consider the representations and orders thereon shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within three months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp