High Court Kerala High Court

Sophy V.K. vs The Director Of Health Services on 13 October, 2010

Kerala High Court
Sophy V.K. vs The Director Of Health Services on 13 October, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 31410 of 2010(A)


1. SOPHY V.K., LADY HEALTH INSPECTOR,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. KOCHU RANI.V.V.,

                        Vs



1. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE MEDICAL OFFICER IN-CHARGE,

3. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

4. THE DISTRICT HEALTH MEDICAL OFFICER

                For Petitioner  :SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

 Dated :13/10/2010

 O R D E R
                         S. SIRI JAGAN, J.
                   ------------------------------
                   W.P.(C) No.31410 OF 2010
                   -------------------------------
            Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010

                         J U D G M E N T

The petitioners are Public Health Nurse Gr.II in the Health

Department of the Government of Kerala. Prior to joining regular

service they had provisional service. Their grievance in this writ

petition is that their provisional service has not been reckoned for

the purpose of granting them increments. Seeking this relief,

they have submitted Exts.P4 and P5 representations before the

third respondent. They seek a direction to the third respondent

to dispose of Exts.P4 and P5 representations expeditiously.

2. I have heard the learned Government Pleader also.

The learned Government Pleader points out that although the

provisional service of the petitioners were prior to 1.10.1994, for

getting their provisional service reckoned, they had to submit

applications within the time limit prescribed by the Government,

which the petitioners have not done. Therefore, they cannot now

claim the benefits on the basis of provisional service, he

W.P.(c)No.31410/10 2

contends.

2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

Whether, because of non-submission of application within the

prescribed time, the petitioners are ineligible for the benefit

sought by them, is also a matter, which the third respondent

can consider while disposing of Exts.P4 and P5.

Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a

direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders

on Exts.P4 and P5, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as

possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

acd

W.P.(c)No.31410/10 3

W.P.(c)No.31410/10 4