IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 5237 of 2010(D) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- DEEPA KRISHNAN, JUNIOR PUBLIC HEALTH NURSE GRADE-II, PRIMARY HEALTH CENTRE, MANAKKADU, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.K.E.HAMZA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, TRIVANDRUM. 3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. -------------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 5237 OF 2010 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a Junior Public Health Nurse Grade II attached to the Primary Health Centre, Manakkadu, Iduki District. She was originally recruited in Pathanamthitta District and she joined duty there on 9.11.1997, as is evident from Ext.P1 dated 17.10.1997. Subsequently, she was transferred to Idukki as per Ext.P2 order dated 21.5.2001, pursuant to which she joined duty in Idukki District on 25.6.2001. The grievance of the petitioner is that in Ext.P3 seniority list, her date of joining service is shown as 25.6.2001 instead of 9.11.1997, for the purpose of assigning seniority. The case of the petitioner is that she would not lose her seniority merely for the reason that she was given an inter district transfer to Idukki District in the light of Exts.P4 and P6. Raising her grievance, the petitioner has already approached the first respondent by filing Ext.P5 appeal under Rule 27(b) of Part II of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958. The specific case of the petitioner is that she has raised a contention relying on Exts.P4 and P6 and that is highlighted in W.P.(C) NO. 5237/2010 2 Ground (b), which reads thus: “(b) Even prior to the inter district transfer of the petitioner, there were vacancies available in her advised districts to accommodate her as Junior Public Health Nurse Grade I on promotion in applying 1:2 ratio. In other words, the Department has not effected promotion to the category of Grade I in time. Result is that the petitioner did not get promotion as Grade I Junior Public Health Nurse when it was ripe. Had the Grade I promotion been effected without delay and laches, petitioner would have got promotion even before her transfer. In that event, the toppling of the seniority position in the revised seniority list would not have happened. The definite case is that there were vacancies for promotion as Junior Public Health Nurse Grade I, before the inter-district transfer of the petitioner. In identical case, even after inter district transfer, the transferees were granted promotion against the post which was available to them prior to the transfer. True copy of the said order is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P6. Petitioner sought for an identical treatment.” 2. The same ground has been virtually taken in Ext.P5. In the light of Exts.P4 and P6, I think the said ground requires serious consideration by the first respondent, while considering the issue involved in the matter. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P5 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a W.P.(C) NO. 5237/2010 3 period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above. (C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) sp/ W.P.(C) NO. 5237/2010 4 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J. W.P.(C) NO. 5237/2010 JUDGMENT 17th February, 2010