IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 19595 of 2009(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. S.SINDHU, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, GRADE II, COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE, OACHIRA, KOLLAM DISTRICT, RESIDING AT KOMOTH HOUSE MUTTOM P.O., HARIPAD. 2. S.BINDU, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE, GRADE II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, KILIKOLLOOR, RESIDING AT EDAYAVETTIVILLA, MANGAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.ALEX RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH, KOLLAM. R1 & R2 BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI. JOSE ADIYODI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: BKA WP(C).No. 19595 of 2009(T) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT DATED 22.04.2003 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1904/2000, WP(C) 326/99, CA NOS. 3591 AND 5332-5235/2000. EXT.P2 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2004 OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. EXT.P3 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 26.03.2007 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P4 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.05.2007 SENT TO THE 1ST PETITIONER. EXT.P5 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 18.06.07 EXT.P6 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.11.2008 SUBMITTED BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 15.06.09 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE OFFICE REPORT DATED 02.08.1999 IN SLP 6416/99 OF THE SUPREME COURT. EXT.P9 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS DATED 09.08.1999 OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP 6416/1999. EXT.P10 COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE SUPREME COURT ON 03.03.2000 IN CIVIL APPEAL(S) 1904/2000. I.A. NO.12477/2011 EXT.P8 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT ON 16.12.2009 IN WP(C) 21231/2009(Y) EXT.P9 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18.04.2011 PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES (FW) EXT.P10 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 07.07.2011 SENT BY 1ST PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE BKA K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.19595 of 2009-T. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th November, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are Junior Public Health Nurses. They entered service in the Health Services Department on 25.1.1990 and 1.1.1990 respectively. They were initially appointed on provisional basis. Subsequently they claimed regularisation of their provisional service. As per Ext.P1 judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to which both of them were parties, their services were directed to be regularised with continuity in service. Accordingly, as per Ext.P2 proceedings the first respondent regularised the services of the petitioners. 2. Though their services were regularised as stated above, the petitioners complain that their names are not included in the seniority list of Junior Public Health Nurses. Therefore, they submitted representations claiming that they were entitled to the benefit of the provisional services WP(C).No.19595/2009-T. 2 rendered by them also, for the purpose of reckoning their seniority. Ext.P3 is one of such representation. The second petitioner had also submitted a similar representation. Though Ext.P6 representation was submitted by the first petitioner thereafter, the same was rejected as per Ext.P7. Since Ext.P7 is in violation of the directions contained in Exts.P1 and P2, the petitioners challenge Ext.P7. The petitioners have also submitted Ext.P10 to the first respondent seeking reconsideration of Ext.P7 and inclusion of the names of the petitioners in the seniority list of Junior Public Health Nurses. The petitioners complain that no orders have been passed thereon till date. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the second respondent refuting the allegations in the writ petition. In paragraph 6 of the counter-affidavit, the contention is that the petitioners had approached this Court and later the Supreme Court only after their termination from service. It is further contended in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit that the claim of the petitioners is not WP(C).No.19595/2009-T. 3 liable to be considered for the reason that they had approached the Supreme Court only after their termination from provisional service on 6.10.1999 and 8.10.1999 respectively. 4. A reply-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners producing Ext.P8 judgment of this Court in WP (C).No.21231/2009 filed by the petitioner therein, one Smt.Geetha T. As per the judgment of this Court, the case of the petitioner therein was directed to be considered by the first respondent. The said person had also made a similar claim for reckoning the provisional service put in by her prior to her regularisation. Accordingly, Ext.P9 order has been issued by the first respondent allowing her claim and granting her the said benefit. According to the petitioners, they are also entitled to the very same benefits that has been granted to Smt.Geetha T. Therefore, the first petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 representation. 5. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Govt.Pleader who appears for the WP(C).No.19595/2009-T. 4 respondents. I have considered the rival contentions advanced by the contesting parties. 6. It is not disputed that Smt.Geetha T., was also one of the parties before the Supreme Court. As per Ext.P2 order, the petitioners as well as the said Smt.Geetha T., were all regularised in service as Junior Public Health Nurses. They have been regularised with effect either from 18.9.2003 or 17.9.2003, being the dates on which they are stated to have rejoined duty. However, Ext.P2 also shows that the petitioners had commenced their provisional service either from 1.1.1990 or from 25.1.1990. All of them had been terminated from service and were later regularised only pursuant to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Ext.P7 also, the name of Smt.Geetha T., figures. Her request for reckoning her provisional service put in before her date of regularisation was also rejected as per Ext.P7. However, as per Ext.P9 the service of the said Smt.Geetha T., has been reckoned from 1.1.1990, tacking on the period of provisional service put in by her also to her WP(C).No.19595/2009-T. 5 regular service. There is no reason why the said benefit should be denied to the petitioners herein. Though the learned Govt.Pleader contended that the petitioners were not entitled to the said benefit for the reason that they had been terminated from service before they had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the said contention cannot be sustained. This is for the reason that the service of Smt.Geetha T., had also been so terminated before she had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If her provisional service could to be reckoned for the purpose of reckoning her seniority, the petitioners are also entitled to a similar treatment. However, since Ext.P10 is pending consideration of the first respondent, I am of opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the said authority to pass appropriate orders on Ext.P10, expeditiously. Since the second petitioner has not made a similar representation, she shall be at liberty to submit a similar representation before the first respondent within ten days of receipt of a copy this judgment. WP(C).No.19595/2009-T. 6 7. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider Ext.P10 representation and the similar representation, if any, submitted by the second petitioner, provided the same is submitted within the period of ten days of receipt of a copy of this judgment, in accordance with law and in the light of Ext.P9 Order No.FW(Spl.Cell) 94660/06/DHS, Dated 18.4.2011 and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The interim order issued in this case shall continue to be in force, until final orders are passed by the first respondent in compliance with the above direction. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-