IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2011/17TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WPC.No. 22004 of 2011 (A) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S) : 1 T.VIJAYAMMA,AGED 56 YEARS, W/O.RAVEENDRAN CHARUVILLA HOUSE VELLIMON WEST PO KUNDARA KOLLAM(HOSPITAL ATTENDANT GRADE-11 ESI HOSPITAL EZHUKONE). BY ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS RESPONDENT(S) : 1 STATE OF KERALA,REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT LABOUR AND REHABILITATION (F) DEPARTMENT SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 2 THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695 001 3 THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE SOUTH ZONE KOLLAM, PIN - 691 001. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. ABDUL KHADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08-12-2011 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: DCS WPC.No. 22004 of 2011 (A) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS : EXT.P1. : COPY OF THE ORDER DTD: 20.01.2005 APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS PART TIME SWEEPER. EXT.P2. : COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP NO.24439/1998. EXT.P3. : COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO.779/1999 DTD: 10.03.1999. EXT.P4. : COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF SARASAMMA DTD: 02.11.1998. EXT.P5. : COPY OF THE ORDER GO (MS) NO.102/2008 DTD: 28.07.2008. EXT.P6. : COPY OF THE ORDER GO (MS) NO.99/2010 DTD:21.08.2010 LBR. EXT.P7. : COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXT.P8. : COPY OF THE LETTER DTD: 10.03.2010 ISSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : EXT.R1(A) : G.O.(MS) NO.99/2010/LBR DTD: 21.08.2010. EXT.R1(B) : COPY OF THE LETTER NO.29786/F2/09/LBR DTD: 02.09.2010. /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE DCS K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.22004 of 2011-A. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th December, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner was an employee of the Insurance Medical Service. She was a part-time Sweeper at the ESI Hospital, Ezhukone, having been appointed as per Ext.P1. While working as part-time Sweeper the petitioner was promoted as Dhobi at the same hospital. She joined as Hospital Attendant Grade II at the same hospital. 2. At the time of her promotion, according to the petitioner, she was not aware that consequent to her promotion she would have to retire at the age of 55 years, thereby substantially reducing the length of service that was available to her. She was also not aware that the present service to her credit being less 17 years, she would not be eligible for full pension also. The resultant situation has placed by the petitioner in a very disadvantageous WP(C).No.22004/2011-A. 2 situation. If she had continued as a part part-time Sweeper it is contended that it would have been possible for her to continue in service up to the age of 70 years under the Part- time Contingency Employees Special Rules. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that as per Circular dated 13.4.1989 issued by the Government, before the promotion of a part-time employee like the petitioner, she should have been informed that she would lose a substantial period of her service and would have to retire from service at the age of 55 years. It is the case of the petitioner that she was not so informed and that she had been promoted without her consent. She has submitted Ext.P7 representation requesting that she may be reverted to the post of part-time Sweeper. Though as per Exts.P3 to P6 orders, the Government had granted similar reliefs to other persons like the petitioners, she complains that no orders have been passed on Ext.P7 so far. Therefore, she seeks the issue of appropriate directions for the WP(C).No.22004/2011-A. 3 consideration of her claim. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the first respondent. It is not in dispute that the consent of the petitioner was not obtained before she was promoted and posted to the regular service. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had not been informed of the consequences of the promotion that was granted to her. Along with the counter-affidavit, Ext.R1(a) order has been produced in which a similarly placed employee has been reverted in identical circumstances. It is the further case of the first respondent that Ext.R1(b) has been issued directing strict compliance with the Circular dated 13.4.1989. 5. I have heard the counsel on both sides, I am of opinion that this writ petition can be disposed of directing the case of the petitioner also to be considered in the light of the orders referred to above. 6. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of directing the first respondent to consider the claim of the WP(C).No.22004/2011-A. 4 petitioner set out in her representation Ext.P7, in the light of the decisions of this Court as well as the Government Orders Exts.P3 to P6 and Ext.R1(a) passed in similar circumstances and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate with a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-