IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2010 / 16TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 21011 of 2010(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. LEELAMANI.K., STAFF NURSE GRADE I, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA. 2. VIMALAMMA.V.R, STAFF NURSE, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA. 3. K.LEKHA, STAFF NURSE, MEDICAL COLLEGE HOSPITAL, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.ARAVINDKUMAR BABU THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 21011 OF 2010 (B) ===================== Dated this the 7th day of July, 2010 J U D G M E N T Ext.P8 order is under challenge. Ext.P8 was passed pursuant to the directions of this Court contained in Ext.P3 judgment in WP(C) No.1515/09. The case of the petitioners is that, by Ext.P1, Government issued order dated 2/11/98 introducing ratio of 1:1 between Staff Nurse Grade I and Staff Nurse Grade II. It is stated that if recommendation as contained in Ext.P1 were implemented earlier, petitioners could have got promotions earlier, and that, on account of the delayed implementation of Ext.P1 only w.e.f. 1999, petitioners' promotion also got delayed and that therefore, they were promoted only in 2008. 2. Essentially therefore, what is complained of by the petitioners is that the ratio 1:1 mentioned above ought to have been implemented earlier than 1999. It is with this grievance, the writ petition is filed. 3. In my view, this claim now raised has been rightly rejected by Ext.P8 not only for the reasons mentioned in Ext.P8, but also for the reason that this grievance now raised is highly WPC No. 21011/10 :2 : belated and if the claim is considered, that will upset the seniority position of several other employees. Therefore, at this distance of time, it will not be appropriate to direct consideration of the claim as sought for. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp