IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2010 / 25TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 20068 of 2010(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DR.THASLEEM ARIF,ANESTHESIOLOGIST, (RESIGNED FROM DISTRICT HOSPITAL MANJERI WHILE WORKING ON CONTRACT BASIS),RESIDING AT; KUTTASSERI HIOUSE,NILAMBOOR ROAD,MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.THAMBAN SRI.R.REJI SMT.THARA THAMBAN SRI.B.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT,DISTRICT HOSPITAL, MANJERI,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676505. 2. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 505. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER(HEALTH), MALAPPURAM-676 505. 4. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, AROGYA KERALAM,MALAPPURAM, MANJERI-676121. 5. THE STATE MISSION DIRECTOR(NRHM), NRHM BUILDING,DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 6. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY,GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. MR.ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.20068 of 2010 (G) --------------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Prayer sought in the writ petition is to direct the respondents to disburse the call duty allowances due to the petitioner admissible as per Ext.P4 guidelines of the 5th respondent. 2. Learned Standing Counsel for respondents 2 to 5 points out that in terms of Clause 11 of Ext.P4, at the end of each month, the 1st respondent is to sent a report to the 4th respondent, who shall scrutinise the list in consultation with the 2nd respondent and release necessary funds to the Medical Officer concerned. 3. However, referring to Ext.P5, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent has already forwarded the bills to the 4th respondent, but inordinate delay is caused in disbursing the admissible amount due. 4. Therefore, if the bills are forwarded and the claims are admissible, then the respondents have no dispute about the entitlement of the petitioner to get call duty allowance. Therefore, WP(C) No.20068/2010 -2- all that is required is that if the bills have already been received by the 4th respondent, the same shall be scrutinised in terms of Ext.P4 guidelines and payments shall be disbursed. 5. Having regard to these facts, I dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (1) That the 1st respondent shall, if not already forwarded the bills of the petitioner for call duty allowance, forthwith forward the same to the 4th respondent. (2) If the 4th respondent has already received the bills from the 1st respondent, or on receipt thereof, necessary action should be taken in terms of Ext.P4 guidelines. (3) The process of scrutiny as envisaged in Ext.P4 shall be completed by the 4th respondent in consultation with respondents 1 & 2 and the claim of the petitioner shall be finalised as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within six weeks from today. The petitioner shall produce a copy of this judgment before respondents 1 & 4 for compliance. This writ petition is disposed of as above. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg