IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 30544 of 2009(K)
1. AMBIKA V.N., VETTIKAKUZHIYIL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER,
3. SUPERINTENDENT,
4. STATE 0F KERALA,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.SASIKUMAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :28/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO.30544 OF 2009 (K)
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 28th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner was a Staff Nurse in the Health Services Department
of the Government of Kerala. She availed leave without allowance for
foreign employment initially for the period from 1988-1993 followed
by extension for the periods from 1993-1998 and 1998-2003. Again
she applied for extension and that was not granted.
2. According to the petitioner subsequently, she came back
and represented for permission to rejoin duty but however that was
not allowed. At that stage, disciplinary action was also initiated
issuing Ext.P4 memo and she filed Ext.P5 reply. While so, petitioner
came to know that another Nurse similarly situated like the
petitioner by name Smt. P. Sujatha a Staff Nurse from Alappuzha
Medical College, who also availed leave without allowance was
permitted to rejoin duty even during the pendency of the disciplinary
action. Petitioner has produced Exts.P10 to P13 orders that were
issued in that case.
3. Coming to know of this development, petitioner submitted
WPC.No.30544 /09
:2 :
Ext.P14 representation to the first respondent requesting that she be
also allowed to rejoin duty as in the case of Smt. P. Sujatha
mentioned above. This representation is pending before the first
respondent and as orders have not been passed, this writ petition is
filed.
4. As stated, the grievance of the petitioner is that in her case
she is not permitted to rejoin duty while a similarly situated
employee was allowed to join duty. It is urging this complaint that
the petitioner has filed Ext.P14 before the first respondent.
5. Having regard to the pendency of Ext.P14, I feel that it is only
appropriate that the first respondent should consider the said
representation and pass appropriate orders thereon duly adverting to
Exts.P10 to P13 as well. An order as above shall be passed as
expeditiously as possible and at any rate within 6 weeks from the
date of production of a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the
writ petition.
Petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a
copy of the writ petition before the 1st respondent for compliance.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/