Dismissed

Annamma Eappen v. the Director of Insurance Medical Servic

Kerala HC14 Jul 2015WP(C)/2333/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order in a writ petition regarding workplace harassment and alleged discrepancies in service records held that the petition contained bland allegations and the petitioner failed to submit necessary leave applications or handover office keys. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, leaving parties to bear their respective costs.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

Annamma Eappen Vs the Director of Insurance Medical… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF JULY 2015/23RD ASHADHA, 1937

¶5

WP(C).No. 2333 of 2011 (N) ---------------------------

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANNAMMA EAPEN, AGED 50 YEARS, D/O.EAPPEN, PARAPPURACKAL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM P.O., IDUKKI. BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE SRI.A.V.JOJO SRI.P.A.WAZEEM

¶8

RESPONDENT(S):

¶9

1. THE DIRECTOR OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. 2. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INSURANCE MEDICAL SERVICE (CZ), ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-680031. 3. THE INSURANCE MEDICAL OFFICER, ESI DISPENSARY, PERUMBAVOOR-685542. * ADDL. R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED 4. HAMSA U.A., UD.CLERK, ESI DISPENSARY, PERUMBAVOOR. 5. P.K.ISSAC, L.D.CLERK, ESI DISPENSARY, PERUMBAVOOR 6. C.S.BHASI, NURSING ASSISTANT, ESI DISPENSARY, PERUMBAVOOR. 7. C.P.JAMES, PHARMACIST, ESI DISPENSARY, PERUMBAVOOR. * ADDL.R4 TO R7 IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 08/02/2011 IN IA.1957/2011. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.MANOJ P. KUNJACHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14-07-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶10

P.T.O.

¶11

WP(C).No. 2333 of 2011 (N) ---------------------------

¶12

APPENDIX

¶13

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶14

EXHIBIT P1: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21/08/2010. EXHIBIT P2: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 08/10/2010

¶15

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBIT: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S. TO JUDGE

SVS

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.

¶20

W.P.(C) No.2333 of 2011-N

¶21

Dated this the 14^th day of July, 2015.

¶22

JUDGMENT

¶23

The petitioner has filed the above writ petition, seeking direction to the first respondent to ensure that there is no harassment caused to the petitioner, at her workplace and to ensure a good working atmosphere of the petitioner in the 3^rd respondent's Office. The petitioner also prays for an enquiry into the allegation, as has been projected in Ext.P1. When the matter was taken up, there is no appearance for the petitioner.

¶24

Having gone through the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner is seen to have made bland allegations, against the 3^rd respondent that she was abused in the presence of patients and other staff

¶25

W.P.(C) No.2333 of 2011-N

¶26

¶27

members of the institution. There is also an allegation that there was some discrepancy in the Service Book of one Head Clerk, which was brought to the notice of the 3^rd respondent by Ext.P2, which was not taken account of. The petitioner, being a Scheduled Caste, is also said to have made a complaint before the Tribal Development Officer, Muvattupuzha.

¶28

At the outset, it is not clear as to how, the petitioner, who admittedly contends that she is a Scheduled Caste, can make a representation before the Tribal Development Officer. Further, paragraph 4 of the Counter Affidavit shows that the petitioner had not submitted leave applications on the dates, as submitted by her in the writ petition. The leave was not sanctioned, only since no such application was made.

¶29

Further, the petitioner, who was in charge of the cash, did not handover the chest key and registers, neither to the Head of Office or to the Office staff and she had

¶30

W.P.(C) No.2333 of 2011-N

¶31

¶32

remained absent unauthorisedly.

¶33

The same is absolutely necessary for the day-to-day working of the organisation. It is the specific contention that the complaint made is an offshoot of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner herein.

¶34

In such circumstance, the writ petition would stand dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE

¶37

Annamma Eappen v. the Director of Insurance Medical Servic

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Annamma Eappen v. the Director of Insurance Medical Servic

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

M.K.Asaf Ali Vs State of Kerala and Others

Suresh Unnikrishnan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Moideenkutty Haji Vs the State of Kerala

S.Krishnamurthy Vs State of Kerala

Santosh Kumar Vs Southern Railway

Crystal Granites Ltd. Vs the Geologist