IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2011 / 25TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 27066 of 2011(G) ------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MUMTHAZ.B., AGED 36 YEARS, WIFE OF NAZEER, HELPER, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 2. SASIKALA.P.S., HELPER, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL,P.O. VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 3. ANITHA.N.M., OFFICE ASSISTANT, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 4. SUNITHA ISMAIL, OFFICE ATTENDER, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 5. SHAJIDA.Y., HELPER, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 6. REMYA.B., OFFICE ASSISTANT SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 7. MINI.T., OFFICE ASSISTANT SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. 8. SHABHANATH.S., HELPER, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. BY ADV. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.V.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR W.P.(C) NO.27066/2011 RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE CO-OPERATIVE ACADEMY OF PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION (CAPE), CO-OPEARATIVE TOWERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. 2. THE ADMINISTRATOR, SAGARA PUNNAPRA CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL, P.O.VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-688 003. R1 BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss W.P.(C) NO.27066/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS P1: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (1ST PETITIONER). DTD. 9.5.2011. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (2ND PETITIONER). 2.2.2011 P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (3RD PETITIONER).12.5.2011. P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (4TH PETITIONER).10.5.2011 P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (5TH PETITIONER).18.6.2011. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (6TH PETITIONER).11.5.2011. P7: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PCH 41/11 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT (7TH PETITIONER). P8: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.E4/662/2011 CAPE/1826 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT.21.5.2011. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ORDER NO.PCH 445/2011 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.30.9.2011. P10: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. 4.10.2011. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS NIL:- TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J --------------------------------------------- W.P.(c)No.27066 of 2011 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October 2011 JUDGMENT Petitioners 1, 2, 5 and 8 are helpers and petitioners 3, 6 and 7 are Office Assistants. The fourth petitioner is an Office Attender. They are all working at the Sagara Punnapra Co-operative Hospital in Alappuzha District. They have been appointed on contract basis for a period of six months or till alternative arrangements are made, whichever is earlier. Later on, their services have been extended for seven years. They have filed this writ petition aggrieved by Ext.P9 proceedings of the first respondent by which the petitioners have been ordered to be redeployed to the Co-operative Medical College, Cochin. 2. According to the petitioners, they are low paid employees and are not in a position to pull on at a place far away from their place of residence. Therefore, they seek the issue of appropriate orders setting aside Ext.P9. Wpc no.27066/2011 2 3. Adv.Thomas Abraham appears for the respondents. According to him, the petitioners are liable to work at any of the institutions to which they are deployed. The counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have submitted Ext.P10 representation, which is pending before the first respondent. Therefore, the first respondent may be directed to consider and take a decision thereon, expeditiously. 4. In view of the limited relief that is prayed, I am of the opinion that this writ petition itself can be disposed of directing Ext.P10 to be considered. 5. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners, evidenced herein by Ext.P10, in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. SD/- K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE