Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VIPIN VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 28 versus THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


VIPIN VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 28 v. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND - WP(C) No. 8828 of 2007(A) [2007] RD-KL 5506 (15 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 8828 of 2007(A)

1. VIPIN VIDHYADHARAN, AGED 28,
... Petitioner

2. JAYACHANDRA BABU K, AGED 32,

3. ATHIRA, AGED 26, D/O CHANAYAMMA,

Vs

1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HEALTH AND
... Respondent

2. THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICE

3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF HEALTH

For Petitioner :SRI.R.T.PRADEEP

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.K.DENESAN

Dated :15/03/2007

O R D E R

K.K.DENESAN, J

W.P.(C)NO.8828 of 2007

Dated this the 15th day of March, 2007



JUDGMENT

The petitioners had been working on contract basis in the TB Centre, Thiruvananthapuram District which is monitored by the District TB Control Society. The 6th respondent District Collector is the Chairman of the Society. According to the petitioners, the appointments are made by the third respondent, the Additional Director of Health Services(TB).

2. The services of the petitioners have come to an end with effect from 26.1.2007 on termination of the contract period. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the practice hitherto being followed was to reappoint the same persons for another term, but after the termination of the service of the petitioners in January 2007, reappointment orders have not been issued. They apprehend that fresh hands are likely to be inducted thereby denying opportunity for experienced hands like the petitioners to W.P.(C)No.8828/2007 :2: serve for another term. Ext.P14 representation filed by the petitioners highlighting the above grievance is pending with the 6th respondent.

3. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and the Government Pleader for the respondents.

4. In the facts and circumstances, I feel that the 6th respondent shall take appropriate decision on Ext.P14 without delay. The 6th respondent is therefore directed to consider relevant aspects and take decision on Ext.P14 within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Needless to state that the decision thus taken shall be communicated to the petitioner.

5. The petitioner shall produce a copy of the judgment along with a copy of the writ petition so that the 6th respondent will be in a position to know the contentions of the petitioners and the same can be taken into account while disposing of Ext.P14.

K.K.DENESAN, JUDGE

css / W.P.(C)No.8828/2007 :3: s W.P.(C)No.8828/2007 :4:


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.