IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21371 of 2010(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ VISALAKSHY AMMA K.G., W/O.KESAVAN NAIR, FLAT NO.8A, LINK HORIZON, MARINE DRIVE, COCHIN-31. (RETIRED MCH OFFICER, DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, MANANTHAVADY) BY ADV. SRI.K.B.PRADEEP RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E) KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695039. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER, WAYANAD-673592. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21371 OF 2010 (V) ===================== Dated this the 9th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that she retired from the Department of Health Services on 30/4/90 while holding the post of MCH Officer. It is stated that while introducing one rank one pension scheme and revising the pension papers of the petitioner, her designation has been wrongly accepted as Public Health Nurse instead of MCH Officer. It is her grievance that although she made several representations to the 1st respondent to reckon her designation as MCH Officer instead of Public Health Nurse and to issue orders revising the pensionary benefits, the request has not been considered. It is in these circumstances, the writ petition has been filed to require the 2nd respondent to forward necessary papers to the 1st respondent to enable him to pass orders revising Ext.P1. 2. If as stated by the petitioner, designation of the petitioner was MCH Officer instead of Public Health Nurse, and a mistake was committed in the pension papers, that ought to be examined. WPC No. 21371/10 :2 : 3. Therefore, I direct the 2nd respondent to consider as to whether a mistake has been committed in reckoning the designation of the petitioner, and that on such examination, if it is found that a mistake has in fact occurred, the 2nd respondent shall forward necessary papers to the 1st respondent, in order to enable the 1st respondent to revise the pensionary benefits of the petitioner. 4. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition before the 2nd respondent, who shall take appropriate action in the matter on the production thereof. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp