High Court Kerala High Court

Leelamani.K vs The Secretary To Government on 7 July, 2010

Kerala High Court
Leelamani.K vs The Secretary To Government on 7 July, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 21011 of 2010(B)


1. LEELAMANI.K.,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. VIMALAMMA.V.R,
3. K.LEKHA,

                        Vs



1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,

3. THE DIRECTOR,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.D.AJITHKUMAR

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

 Dated :07/07/2010

 O R D E R
                       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