IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 26TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 31521 of 2008(C) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SHEEJA.S, NURSE, M.C.H.CENTRE, KARITHURA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM (CHAIRMAN, MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD). 2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER, M.C.H. CENTRE, KARITHURA. *ADDL.R3 THE MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD, KOLLAM REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. (THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, KOLLAM.) *ADDL.R4 SRI.N.D.PREMACHANDRAN, MINISTER FOR WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. *(IMPLEADED ADDITIONAL RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 AS PER ORDER DATED 17/09/2009 IN I.A.NO.519/2009) MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.31521/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER OF THE PETITIONER BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 12/06/2004. P2 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIONER DATED 04/10/2008. P3 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PETITIOENR DATED 23/10/2008. P4 : COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE R1 DATED 01/11/2008. P5 : COPY OF THE DECISION DATED 21/10/2008 OF THE MINING AREA WELFARE BOARD ISSUED BY R1. P6 : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CON.CASE (C) NO.1713/2008 DATED 27/11/2008 OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT. P7 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY A.THANKACHI DATED 25/11/2008. P8 : COPY OF THE LETTER OF REPLY ISSUED BY THE ASST.DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER (GENERAL), KOLLAM DATED 22/12/2008. P9 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 30/09/2008 OF R2. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC,J. --------------------- W.P.(C).No.31521 OF 2008-C ------------------------ Dated this the 17th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against Exts.P4 and P5. Petitioner also seeks a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to reinstate her in service. 2. Ext.P1 is an order issued by the first respondent on 12.6.2004 appointing the petitioner as Nurse in the M.C.H Centre,Karithura in Chavara Panchayat, on contract basis with consolidated pay. It would appear that the agreed term of appointment was for one year. However, even after the expiry of the period, the petitioner continued as Nurse. According to the petitioner on 25.9.2008, the 2nd respondent refused to permit her to work in the Medical Centre and thereupon she submitted a representation to the first respondent complaining against the 2nd respondent. Meantime she came to know that the first respondent had decided to terminate her appointment and therefore she submitted Ext.P3 request to the first respondent for a copy of the WP(C) No.31521/2008 -2- termination order. There was no response to the request and at the same time she was kept out of service. It was in those circumstances, this writ petition was filed seeking to quash the termination order and to enable her to continue to work as Nurse. 3. When the writ petition came up for orders before this court, taking into account the submission made by the Learned Government Pleader that the order of termination was already passed and that copy thereof will be served on the petitioner, order dated 12.11.2008 was passed directing the respondents to give copy of the order of termination. According to the petitioner that was not complied with, which lead to filing of Contempt of Court Case No.1713/08. Thereafter Exts.P4 and P5 were served on the petitioner. Producing Exts.P4 and P5, petitioner amended the writ petition, challenging Exts.P4 and P5. 4. Petitioner submits that, in the meanwhile she also made a request, on coming to know that her termination of service was the reason that the period of the contract had expired and that there were oral complaints against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner submitted Ext.P7 request before the Assistant WP(C) No.31521/2008 -3- Development Commissioner, the Information Officer appointed seeking information on the six questions mentioned therein. 5. In Ext.P7, question No.3 was whether the contract of appointment has been renewed in the case of anybody, and if so, to furnish a copy thereof. That has been answered in Ext.P8, that contract has not been renewed in the case of anybody. The 4th question was whether anybody has been terminated for the reason that contract has not been renewed. The answer given in Ext.P8 to this question is in the negative. The 5th question was whether anybody, whose contract period has expired, is still continuing in service, and this has been answered in affirmative, with a further statement that the question of renewal of contract is pending consideration of the Mining Area Welfare Board. The 6th question was whether there was any written complaint against the petitioner, and if so, to give a copy thereof. Answer to this question is that no written complaint has been received in the office. 6. The counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent also states that the expiry of the period of contract and receipt of oral complaints are the reasons for dispensing with the services of the WP(C) No.31521/2008 -4- petitioner. The question is whether in the light of the above materials, there is any substance in the contentions raised in the counter affidavit and in the impugned orders, to justify termination of the petitioner's services. 7. True, the petitioner was only a contract employee, and the period of contract was specified as one year, which admittedly, has expired. However, since the other persons engaged along with the petitioner with similar contract are all allowed to continue in service despite the expiry of period of contract, there is absolutely no reason forthcoming in any of the impugned orders or in the affidavit, to justify the discriminatory stand taken, in so far as the petitioner alone is concerned. Although, it may be true that the petitioner has no right as such to continue in service, she is entitled to be treated on a par with other similarly situated employees. If so, since the other persons employed along with the petitioner on similar terms are allowed to continue in service, in my view, the petitioner is also entitled to be retained in service, so long as the other persons are also allowed to continue in service. 8. The other reason stated in the impugned orders to WP(C) No.31521/2008 -5- justify the termination is the oral complaints allegedly received by the authorities against the petitioner. Admittedly, no written complaint has been received by either of the respondents, and all that is stated is oral complaints have been received and the nature of the complaints is also unknown. In this context, I should make reference to Ext.P9, a report submitted by the 2nd respondent to the Assistant Development Commissioner, Kollam, which testifies the good conduct and performance of the petitioner in her official duties. 9. Even if it is assumed for the sake of the argument that oral complaints disclosing misconduct were received against the petitioner, action should have been taken against the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice. This also has not been done in this case. Therefore, the fact that the oral complaints were alleged to have been received, in the absence of any further action in that behalf, cannot justify the termination of the petitioner's service. Therefore, in my view, Exts.P4 & P5 cannot be sustained, and accordingly, these orders are set aside. The respondents are WP(C) No.31521/2008 -6- directed to reinstate the petitioner in service, and continue her in service so long as other persons, who are similarly situated, are retained. However, this judgment will not prevent the respondents from initiating any action against the petitioner, in case any misconduct has been committed by her, in accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg