{"id":223524,"date":"2008-01-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2"},"modified":"2017-08-09T06:04:59","modified_gmt":"2017-08-09T00:34:59","slug":"mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","title":{"rendered":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 38310 of 2007(I)\n\n\n1. MRS.REENMOL JOSEPH, W\/O.V.K.GEORGE,\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY\n\n3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, E.S.I. HOSPITAL,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.R.SURENDRAN\n\n                For Respondent  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI\n\n Dated :29\/01\/2008\n\n O R D E R\n                               V.GIRI, J\n\n                             -------------------\n\n      W.P.(C)s.  38310  of  2007  &  52,  63, 271, 290,\n\n                      396, 797, 887 of  2008\n\n                            --------------------\n\n           Dated this  the  29th day of January, 2008\n\n\n                             JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
      Common issues are raised for consideration in these<\/p>\n
writ   petitions   and   therefore,   they     are   disposed   of   by   a<\/p>\n
common judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
2.    All   these   writ   petitions   were   filed   recently.     They<\/p>\n
were   admitted   and   interim   orders   were   also   passed.     It<\/p>\n
was   found   that   the   issues   which   have   been   raised   for<\/p>\n
consideration   in   these   writ   petitions   require   an<\/p>\n
expeditious determination. On consent of parties, the writ<\/p>\n
petitions   were   taken   up   for   hearing.   On   hearing   the<\/p>\n
learned counsel on either side,  it was  felt  that the matter<\/p>\n
requires a re-consideration by the Government.     Since a<\/p>\n
further   consideration   by   the   Government   is   deemed<\/p>\n
necessary,  I propose  to dispose of the writ petitions.  Writ<\/p>\n
Petition   No.38310\/2007   is   taken   as   the     leading   case   for<\/p>\n
convenience.\n<\/p>\n
\nW.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                   2<\/span><\/p>\n
3.    Petitioners   were     promoted   as   Head   Nurse   with<\/p>\n
effect   from   19.1.2001   as   per   Ext.P3   order.     Their<\/p>\n
probation   was   also   declared   in   the   said   post   as   per<\/p>\n
Ext.P4 dated 16.1.2006 by G.O.(P).No.145\/06\/Fin. Dated<\/p>\n
25.3.2006.     Recommendations   of     the   pay   Commission<\/p>\n
were   accepted   by   the   Government   and   orders   were<\/p>\n
issued   (herein  after   referred  to  as   ‘pay   revision   order’).<\/p>\n
As per clause   8 of the pay revision order, the   existing<\/p>\n
ratio\/higher   grade   and   the   revised   ratio   to   various<\/p>\n
categories  are indicated at the appropriate places under<\/p>\n
each Department in Annexure-12.    It is made clear  that<\/p>\n
the newly introduced\/improved ratio promotion  will have<\/p>\n
effect only   from the date of   order.   As per   Item 38 of<\/p>\n
Annexure,     pay   scale   of   Head   Nurses     is   revised   from<\/p>\n
Rs.5000-8150  to 9190-15510.  It is further noted therein<\/p>\n
that   the   cadre   strength   of   Head   Nurses   will   be<\/p>\n
determined in the ratio of 1:4 between the Head Nurses<\/p>\n
and   Staff Nurses Grade-I.   Staff Nurses will be allowed<\/p>\n
higher grade in the scale of pay of Rs.8390-13270\/-   and<\/p>\n
the ratio  between the Staff Nurses Grade-I and II will be<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
1:1.   As per clause 53 of the pay revision order, revised<\/p>\n
scales   will   be   effective   from   1.7.2004,   but   the   date   of<\/p>\n
effect   of   revised   ratio\/higher   grades   will   be   the   date   of<\/p>\n
order itself.  Thus going by clause 53, change in the ratio<\/p>\n
between   Head   Nurses   and   Staff   Nurses   as   such   will   be<\/p>\n
effective from the date of the pay revision order.<\/p>\n
4.     The   cadre   strength     for   Nurses   in   the   Insurance<\/p>\n
Medical Services is 328.   Apparently,   the ratio between<\/p>\n
Head   Nurses   and   Staff   Nurses     under   the   earlier   pay<\/p>\n
revision  order   was  1:2   and   therefore,    one   out   of  every<\/p>\n
three     was a Head Nurse.   By the present pay revision<\/p>\n
order,     the   Staff     strength   of   Nurses   does   not   seem   to<\/p>\n
have   undergone   change.     Ratio   between     Head   Nurses<\/p>\n
and   Staff   Nurses   have   been   changed     from   1:2     to   1:4<\/p>\n
and this inter alia,  results in the reduction of   number of<\/p>\n
posts of  Head Nurses.  Taking 328  as the  Staff strength<\/p>\n
among   Nurses   the   number   of   posts   of   Head   Nurses<\/p>\n
available   as   per   the   revised   ratio   brought   into   force<\/p>\n
under   the   existing   pay   revision   order   will   have   to   be<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
calculated   applying   the   percentage   to   the   number   of<\/p>\n
posts   sanctioned   for   Staff   Nurses   Grade-I.                     An<\/p>\n
arithmetical   determination   on   this   issue   may   not   be<\/p>\n
relevant at this stage.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
5.     Suffice it to say, that the Government felt that   on<\/p>\n
implementation  of the pay revision order,    there will  be<\/p>\n
reduction   in   the   number   of   posts   of   Head   Nurses.     But<\/p>\n
the   ratio   as   prescribed   in   the   pay   revision   order   will<\/p>\n
nevertheless   have   to   be   implemented.     If   the   date   of<\/p>\n
order   is   25.3.2006   (or   even   1.3.2006),   it   follows   as   a<\/p>\n
consequence   that   the   ratio   will   have   to   be   applied<\/p>\n
against   the   vacancies   which   arise     in   the   cadre   with<\/p>\n
effect   from   the   date   of   order.     But   in   the   case   of   the<\/p>\n
petitioners,   they   had   already   been   promoted   as   Head<\/p>\n
Nurses well prior   to the date of pay revision order.   In<\/p>\n
fact the latest date in  so far as   some of the  petitioners<\/p>\n
herein   are   concerned,     is   21.6.2005,   whereas     in   some<\/p>\n
cases,   petitioners   were   promoted     as     Head   Nurses   as<\/p>\n
early   as   in   2001   and   in   some   of   these   cases     their<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                    5<\/span><\/p>\n
probation   has   also   been   declared.     On   revised   scales<\/p>\n
being applicable under the pay revision order,  they were<\/p>\n
fitted   into   the   scale   of   pay  of   Rs.9190-15510     and   have<\/p>\n
been drawing salary accordingly.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
6.    While so,  Director of Insurance of Medical Services<\/p>\n
issued   the   order   impugned   in   all   these   cases   dated<\/p>\n
10.12.2007.   The relevant portion   of the same reads as<\/p>\n
follows:-\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       As   per   G.O.(P).145\/06\/Fin.dated   25.3.2006,<\/p>\n
       a   higher   grade   viz,     “Grade-I”   has   been<\/p>\n
       sanctioned   to   Staff   Nurse   of   Insurance<\/p>\n
       Medical   Services   Department   in   the   ratio<\/p>\n
       1:1.     The   ratio   promotion     to   the   post   of<\/p>\n
       Head   Nurse   has   also   been   revised     to   1:4<\/p>\n
       between Head Nurse and Staff Nurse Grade-<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       I.   Accordingly   among the total strength of<\/p>\n
       nurses ie., 328, 164  will be Grade-I and 164<\/p>\n
       will   be   Grade-II.     1\/5th  of   164   Staff   Nurse<\/p>\n
       Grade-I ie, 32 will be Head Nurse.  Vide the<\/p>\n
       Order   read   as   second   above,     Government<\/p>\n
       have   ordered   accordingly   and   have<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     6<\/span><\/p>\n
       authorized   the   Director   of   Insurance<\/p>\n
       Medical Services to make   district wise   re-<\/p>\n
       arrangement     of   the   posts.     The   excess<\/p>\n
       number of Head Nurses  in position over and<\/p>\n
       above   the     permissible   number   as   per   the<\/p>\n
       ratio   prescribed   in   the   Government     order<\/p>\n
       read as first above will be reverted.”<\/p>\n
7.     Consequent   thereupon,   all   the   petitioners   were<\/p>\n
reverted   to   the   post   of   Staff   Nurse   Grade-I   on   the<\/p>\n
premise     that   going     by   the   existing     permissible   ratio<\/p>\n
between   Staff   Nurse   Grade-I   and   Head   Nurses   in   the<\/p>\n
department,     they   are   in   excess     and  consequently     are<\/p>\n
liable   to   be   reverted     as   the   Staff   Nurse   Grade-I.     The<\/p>\n
impugned order seems to be a consequence of G.O.(MS).<\/p>\n
No.164\/07\/LBR.   Dated     7.12.2007.       Apparently,     the<\/p>\n
Director   had only implemented the order passed by the<\/p>\n
Government,                   G.O.(MS).No.164\/07\/LBR.   Dated<\/p>\n
7.12.2007,  which is also   made available for perusal.<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     7<\/span><\/p>\n
8.    The   orders   of   reversion   in   so   far   as  the   individual<\/p>\n
petitioners     are   concerned   have   been   stayed   by   this<\/p>\n
Court.  Petitioners therefore continue as Head Nurses.<\/p>\n
9.    It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they<\/p>\n
have   been   promoted   as   Head   Nurses     in   the   course   of<\/p>\n
regular promotion effected   in the service   well prior   to<\/p>\n
the date of issuance of pay revision order.       In many of<\/p>\n
these  cases, probation has also been declared.  If in the<\/p>\n
course of enforcing the   pay revision order, there  comes<\/p>\n
about   a   change   in   the   ratio   between   Staff   Nurses   and<\/p>\n
Head   Nurses,   the   change     should   be   applied   in   such   a<\/p>\n
manner     that   promotions   regularly   effected   prior  to  the<\/p>\n
date of the order are not affected.  There is a change  in<\/p>\n
the   scale   of   pay   applicable   to   Head   Nurses   and   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurses.   Post of Head Nurse is a promotion post to that<\/p>\n
of   the   Staff   Nurse.     Appointment   to   the   post   of   Head<\/p>\n
Nurses,     in   the   case   of   the   petitioners   was   by   way   of<\/p>\n
cadre   promotion   and   in   accordance   with   special   rules<\/p>\n
governing  the  service.   If that be so,   a re-arrangement<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                    8<\/span><\/p>\n
of   the   post,     as   is   purported     to   be   done   under   the<\/p>\n
Government   Order   dated   7.12.2007   and   the   impugned<\/p>\n
order of  the  Director  of  Insurance  Medical Services,    is<\/p>\n
illegal because it entails  a reversion of a person who has<\/p>\n
been regularly   promoted against a substantive vacancy,<\/p>\n
existing   as   per   the   ratio   prevailing   prior   to   the     pay<\/p>\n
revision   order   in   question.            This   is   illegal   and<\/p>\n
unconstitutional, contend the petitioners.<\/p>\n
10.    Learned senior Government Pleader submits that a<\/p>\n
change   in   the   ratio   as   between   the   Head   Nurses   and<\/p>\n
Staff   Nurses   is   provided   in   the   pay   revision   order   and<\/p>\n
there  is no  challenge   to  the   pay revision   order as such.<\/p>\n
There   is   a   revised   scale   made   applicable   to   the   Head<\/p>\n
Nurses,  which is higher than that  of Staff Nurse Grade-<\/p>\n
I.     After     contemporaneous     revision     of   scales,<\/p>\n
Government thought it fit   to change   the ratio between<\/p>\n
the   Head   Nurses   and   Staff   Nurses   Grade-I   (and   also<\/p>\n
provide   for   Grade-I   and   II   posts   among   Staff   Nurses).<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     9<\/span><\/p>\n
The    power of the  Government in  that behalf cannot be<\/p>\n
questioned.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
11.    A   person   who   is   included   in   the     rank   list     of<\/p>\n
candidates,  published   by  the   PSC,     for   the   post of   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurse   in   the   Insurance   Medical   Services   department,<\/p>\n
Kannur   District,   has   got   himself   impleaded     in   Writ<\/p>\n
Petition No.290\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
12.    I   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners,<\/p>\n
learned   senior   Government   Pleader   and   the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   additional   respondent   in   W.P.(C).<\/p>\n
290\/2008.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
13.    There   are     certain   facts   which   could   be   re-<\/p>\n
capitulated.     Firstly     all   the   petitioners   were   regularly<\/p>\n
promoted to the post of Head Nurses.   Promotion of the<\/p>\n
petitioners and appointment to the  post of   Head Nurse<\/p>\n
was   against   substantive   vacancies.     It   is   not   alleged<\/p>\n
either   in   the   Government   Order   dated   7.12.2007   or   in<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     10<\/span><\/p>\n
the   impugned   order   that   the     petitioners’   promotions<\/p>\n
were     irregular   in   the   sense     that   it   was   in   excess   of<\/p>\n
permissible   ratio     as   prevailing     under   the   earlier   pay<\/p>\n
revision order.   In many of these cases,   their probation<\/p>\n
has also been declared.   Existing pay revision order also<\/p>\n
maintains a distinction between Staff Nurses Grade-I and<\/p>\n
II   and   Head   Nurses.     It   may   not   be   possible     for   the<\/p>\n
Government  to provide otherwise as well  in as much as<\/p>\n
special rules  for the subordinate services provide  Head<\/p>\n
Nurse as a promotion post to that of a staff nurse.    In so<\/p>\n
far   as   the   petitioners   are   concerned,     they   were<\/p>\n
promoted   as    Head   Nurses   well   prior   to   25.3.2006,   the<\/p>\n
date of pay revision order, and consequentially they are<\/p>\n
entitled to be  protected  in the said post.<\/p>\n
14.    While referring to those aspects,  it will also have to<\/p>\n
be   noted   that   the   Government   is   entitled   to   revise   the<\/p>\n
ratio   amongst     Staff   Nurses   in   the   Insurance   Medical<\/p>\n
Department   and   if   by   way   of   the   revision,     number   of<\/p>\n
post in   Head Nurses  undergo reduction,  such  reduction<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                     11<\/span><\/p>\n
may   not     afford     any   cause   of   action   for   persons   who<\/p>\n
otherwise have been promoted as   Head Nurses.   But   if<\/p>\n
persons have been promoted irregularly in the sense that<\/p>\n
they   were   promoted   in   excess   of     cadre   strength<\/p>\n
available   to     Head   Nurses,   then   it   is   open   to   the<\/p>\n
Government to rectify their mistake.   But a reduction by<\/p>\n
reason   of   a   revision     in   the   ratio   brought   about   by   the<\/p>\n
pay   revision   order   shall   not   result     in   a   regular<\/p>\n
promotion    being  cancelled or a promoted person being<\/p>\n
reverted   purely   as   a   consequence   of   the   revised   ratio.<\/p>\n
Apparently    that  is what    happened in   this   case.    While<\/p>\n
a   revised   ratio   was   brought     about   by   the   pay   revision<\/p>\n
order,   Government   should   have   made   it     clear   that   the<\/p>\n
same    shall  not affect  the    rights  of    persons  who  were<\/p>\n
regularly   promoted   as   Head   Nurses   against   substantive<\/p>\n
vacancies in the said post available and existing, prior to<\/p>\n
the date of enforcement of the pay revision order.  If it is<\/p>\n
found     that   by   enforcing     the   revised   ratio,     several<\/p>\n
persons   functioning   as   Head   Nurses     are   in   excess   of<\/p>\n
such   revised   ratio,     it   would   always   be   open   to   the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                    12<\/span><\/p>\n
Government     to   declare     that     an   equivalent   number   of<\/p>\n
posts   be   treated   as   supernumerary   without   there   being<\/p>\n
an   enhancement     of   cadre   strength   as   such.       Such<\/p>\n
consequential  steps are   always open  to be taken by  the<\/p>\n
Government.   But as   I have already noted enforcement<\/p>\n
of   the   revised   ratio   between   Staff   Nurses   and   Head<\/p>\n
Nurses especially as a consequence of providing Grade I<\/p>\n
and   II   among   Staff   Nurses   shall   not   result   in   regular<\/p>\n
promotions   to   the   post   of   Head   Nurse   being   cancelled<\/p>\n
and   shall   not   result   in   persons   who   were   regularly<\/p>\n
promoted   as   Head   Nurses,     being   reverted   as   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurse.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
15.    It is also   relevant in this context to note that both<\/p>\n
under   the   earlier   pay   revision   order   and   current   pay<\/p>\n
revision order, there  was difference in the   scale of pay<\/p>\n
applicable to the Head Nurses.  Therefore, the impugned<\/p>\n
order by which the petitioners were brought to the post<\/p>\n
of   Staff   Nurse   Grade-I   also   resulted   in       reduction     of<\/p>\n
their scale of pay.  After all,  even if the impugned order<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                      13<\/span><\/p>\n
is ultimately upheld,  as being necessary in the context of<\/p>\n
enforcing   the   revised   ratio   brought   about   by   the   pay<\/p>\n
revision   order,     all   the   promotees     would   be   entitled   to<\/p>\n
pay   protection.     It   is   therefore,   that   the   Government<\/p>\n
should   re-consider   the   issue     brought   about   by   the<\/p>\n
revision   in   the   ratio   between   Head   Nurses   and   Staff<\/p>\n
Nurse in the Insurance Medical Department.<\/p>\n
16.    In   the   result     writ   petitions   are   disposed   of   in   the<\/p>\n
following terms:\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
       (i).    Government shall pass fresh orders as regards<\/p>\n
       the   manner   in   which   the   revised   ratio   of   1:2<\/p>\n
       between     Head   Nurses   and   Staff   Nurses   in   the<\/p>\n
       Insurance   Medical   Department   as   provided   under<\/p>\n
       Rule 38 of Annexure-12 to the pay revision  order is<\/p>\n
       to be implemented, taking note of the observations<\/p>\n
       made   above   and   with   particular   reference   to   the<\/p>\n
       fact     that   persons,   who   were   regularly   promoted<\/p>\n
       aganst     substantive   vacancies   in   the   post   of   Head<\/p>\n
       Nurse   prior   to     the   enforcement   of   pay   revision<\/p>\n
       order dated 25.3.2006,  are not liable to be reverted<\/p>\n
       from  the said post.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                    14<\/span><\/p>\n
      (ii).     On   enforcement   of   the   revised   ratio,   if   the<\/p>\n
      Government   finds       that   some   persons     were<\/p>\n
      promoted   as   Head   Nurse,   prior   to   25.3.2006,     in<\/p>\n
      excess   of   the   permissible     ratio     of   1:2   between<\/p>\n
      Head Nurse and Staff Nurse as was available under<\/p>\n
      the earlier   pay revision order, G.O.(P).3098   dated<\/p>\n
      25.11.1998,     then   appropriate   directions   may   be<\/p>\n
      issued  to provide  for  the  manner  in  which  persons<\/p>\n
      so   promoted   irregularly   shall   be   accommodated   in<\/p>\n
      the post of Staff Nurse Grade-I.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (iii). In doing so, Government should   bear in mind<\/p>\n
      the fact that if persons have been  promoted by way<\/p>\n
      of regular  cadre promotions and their  probation  in<\/p>\n
      the   promoted   post   has   also   been   declared,     then<\/p>\n
      pay   of   such   promoted   persons   are   eligible   to   be<\/p>\n
      protected and is not liable to be   reduced as   such.<\/p>\n
      If necessary,  it is open  to the Government to either<\/p>\n
      enforce     a   revised   ratio   prospectively   or   provide   a<\/p>\n
      supernumerary   post   to   tide   over   the   situation<\/p>\n
      brought about by the   promotions effected prior to<\/p>\n
      the date of enforcement of pay revision order.<\/p>\n
      (iv).  If   the  Government   proposes   to pass  any  order<\/p>\n
      which   will   detrimentally   affect   the   interest   of   the<\/p>\n
W.P.(C)s.38310\/2007 and<\/p>\n
Connected  Cases                    15<\/span><\/p>\n
        petitioners   herein,   then   the   petitioners   or<\/p>\n
        authorized   representatives     shall   be   given   notice<\/p>\n
        and shall be heard before revised  orders are passed<\/p>\n
        by the Government in the manner aforementioned.<\/p>\n
17.     Entire   process   as   mentioned   above     shall   be<\/p>\n
completed within a period of four months from the date<\/p>\n
of receipt of  a copy of this judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
18.     Interim   orders   already   passed   in   these   cases   shall<\/p>\n
continue   to   remain   in   force   till   fresh   orders   are   passed<\/p>\n
by   the   Government   in   the   manner   aforementioned   and<\/p>\n
communicated to the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
                                                V.GIRI,<\/p>\n
                                                Judge<\/p>\n
mrcs<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 38310 of 2007(I) 1. MRS.REENMOL JOSEPH, W\/O.V.K.GEORGE, … Petitioner Vs 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, E.S.I. HOSPITAL, For […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-223524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\"},\"wordCount\":2464,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\",\"name\":\"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008","datePublished":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2"},"wordCount":2464,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2","name":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-01-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-08-09T00:34:59+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mrs-reenmol-joseph-vs-the-director-of-insurance-medical-on-29-january-2008-2#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mrs.Reenmol Joseph vs The Director Of Insurance Medical on 29 January, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=223524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/223524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=223524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=223524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=223524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}