Disposed

Dr.Anitha v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC19 Dec 2007WP(C)/37774/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, a tutor in the Padiyar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, filed a writ petition aggrieved by discrimination between clinical and non-clinical staff in service benefits. The court directed the Health Department to consider the representation expeditiously within three months with notice to the college principal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the 1st respondent (Health Department) to consider Ext.P11 and pass appropriate orders within three months after sending a copy of the judgment and affording an opportunity of being heard

Dr.Anitha Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2007)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2007 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1929

¶5

WP(C).No. 37774 of 2007(V) --------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

¶8

DR.ANITHA M.A., TUTOR, DEPT. OF ORGANON, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT KURUMDODATH HOUSE, EROOR SOUTH, TRIPUNITHURA.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.P.SREEKUMAR SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR)

¶10

RESPONDENTS:

¶11

¶12

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR OF HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

THE PRINCIPAL, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM.

¶16

BY SMT.N.SUDHA DEVI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/12/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

¶19

W.P.(C)No.37774 OF 2007

¶20

Dated this the 19^th day of December, 2007

¶21

JUDGMENT

¶22

The petitioner is a tutor in the Padiyar Memorial Homoeopathic Medical College, Chottanikkara. She is aggrieved by the discrimination shown by the 4^th respondent between clinical and non-clinical staff in the matter of granting service benefits. Detailing these grievances, the petitioner has filed Ext.P11 representation before the 1^st respondent. The petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of the same.

¶23

I have heard the learned Government pleader also. In the nature of the order I propose to pass I do not think it necessary to issue notice to the 4^th respondent for the present. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there would be a direction to the 1^st respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P11 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment,

¶24

W.P.(c)No.37774/07

¶25

¶26

after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent.

¶27

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶28

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶29

Acd

Dr.Anitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Anitha v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ismayil Kutty .T.P. Vs v.Karthikeyan

Dr.v.Shyamala Vs Principal Secretary to Government,Trivan

Smitha V.R. Vs the Prl.Secretary to Govt.Genl.Edn.Dept.

P.K.Govindan Vs State

Lijo Joseph Vs T.R.Shina

M/S.Janco Dipped Products Pvt.Ltd Vs the Asst.P.F. Commissioner