IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 15855 of 2009(B)
1. M.USHA KUMARI,STAFF NURSE,GOVERNMENT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
3. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.SHAJI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :09/06/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.15855 of 2009
--------------------------------------
Dated 9th June, 2009
JUDGMENT
Heard Sri.T.A.Shaji, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Smt.Anu Sivaraman, the learned Senior Government
Pleader appearing for the respondents.
2. The petitioner is presently working as Staff Nurse in the
Government Mental Health Centre, Kozhikode. She was appointed as
Staff Nurse on 10.4.1992 on advice by the Kerala Public Service
Commission. Prior to her regular appointment, she had served as
Staff Nurse on provisional basis during the period from 9.10.1987 to
31.3.1989 and thereafter from 7.12.1989 to 9.4.1992. The
petitioner’s grievance is that though the provisional service rendered
by her during the aforesaid spells has to be reckoned for the purpose
of grant of increments, applying Government Decision No.2 under Rule
33 of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules, the said benefit has not so far
been extended to her. Relying on the Full Bench decision of this Court
in State of Kerala v. Ponnamma (2005(4) KLT 987 (F.B)), the
petitioner contends that as the provisional service rendered by her was
prior to 1.10.1994, such provisional service has to be reckoned for the
purpose of grant of increments. In this writ petition, the petitioner
WP(C).No.15855/2009 2
seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents
to reckon the provisional service rendered by her as Staff Nurse for the
purpose of increments and other service benefits.
3. The pleadings disclose that the petitioner has not moved
any authority other than the District Medical Officer of Health,
Kozhikode claiming the said benefit. In my opinion, the petitioner
ought to have moved the Director of Health Services instead of moving
the District Medical Officer. In any case, the petitioner ought to have
moved the Director of Health Services before seeking the intervention
of this Court.
I accordingly dispose of this writ petition with the direction
that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate representation
before the second respondent within one month from today, setting
out her claims and contentions, the second respondent shall consider
the same in the light of the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in
State of Kerala v. Ponnamma (2005(4) KLT 987 (F.B)) and other
decisions of this Court and take a decision thereon within three months
from the date on which such a representation is received. Needless to
say, before passing orders as directed above, the petitioner shall also
be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Director of
Health Services after orders are passed as directed above
WP(C).No.15855/2009 3
communicate a copy thereof to the petitioner expeditiously. In the
event of the petitioner’s claim being allowed, the Director of Health
Services shall also issue necessary directions to the concerned officer
to disburse to the petitioner the monetary benefits, expeditiously.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS