Allowed

C.Unnikrishnan v. the Director of Health Services

Kerala HC16 Jun 2016WA/1377/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition. It held that under the 1985 amended Small Family Norms Scheme, sterilization performed in a private hospital or by a private practitioner is eligible for an increment benefit if a government medical officer countersigns the certificate. The court set aside the lower decision and ordered the District Medical Officer to count

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment was set aside. The second respondent was directed to countersign the certificate after resubmission within one month.

C.Unnikrishnan Vs the Director of Health… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU

¶6

THURSDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2016/26TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶7

WA.No. 1377 of 2013 () IN WP(C).31090/2009

¶8

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 31090/2009 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 14-06-2012

¶9

APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER:

¶10

C.UNNIKRISHNAN

¶11

S/O.CHAMI GUPTHAN, PEON, CAT, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT QUARTER NO.B41, BLOCK XV, GPRA, KUNNUMPURAM, KAKKANAD.

¶12

BY ADVS.SRI.S.RADHAKRISHNAN

¶13

SRI.S.RAJ MOHAN SMT.V.M.RUSHDA KUM.R.ANJALI

¶14

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS:

¶15

THE DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 011.

¶16

THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER PALAKKAD 678 003.

¶17

DR.H.SAMARTHARAM MBBS, DGO, SANDHYA RAM HOSPITAL, KADAMBAZHI PURAM, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. PIN 678 001.

¶18

R1, R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.E.M.ABDUL KHADER

¶19

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16-06-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ANTONY DOMINIC & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ.

¶21

W.A.No.1377 of 2013

¶22

¶23

Dated this the 16^th day of June, 2016

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J.

¶26

The appellant, a central Government employee, filed W.P(C). 31090/09 questioning the action of the respondent authorities in refusing him the benefit of one increment for the sterilization his wife underwent. This Court, per a learned Single Judge, dismissed the

¶27

writ petition on 14.6.2012. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

¶28

The facts in brief are that the appellant’s wife underwent family planning sterilisation in a private Nursing Home, as is evident from Ext.P1 certificate. Later, on the strength of Ext.P1 certificate, the appellant, being the spouse, claimed an increment as per the scheme introduced by the Central Government—Small Family Norms Scheme. But it was rejected by the District Medical Officer concerned, who refused to countersign Ext.P3 representation submitted by the appellant. The cause assigned for the refusal was

¶29

¶30

WA.1377/13

¶31

that the appellant's wife did not undergo the sterilisation in an accredited hospital. Under those circumstances, the appellant filed the writ petition.

¶32

The respondents’ principal contention before the learned Single Judge was that though the factum of the appellant's wife undergoing sterilisation could not be denied, she had, however, undergone that in a private hospital having no accreditation. The plea merited acceptance in the writ petition.

¶33

The learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously contended that the norms governing the scheme had initially stipulated that the sterilisation must be undergone in a Government hospital or in a hospital having Government accreditation. According to him, subsequently, through an amendment dated 16.12.1985, the Central Government, his employer, relaxed the norms: that a person could undergo sterilisation even in a private hospital and that the operation could be performed by a private medical practitioner, too, who need not have any hospital. The learned counsel, in that

¶34

¶35

WA.1377/13

¶36

context, has drawn our attention to the second respondent’s affidavit, filed for the first time in this writ appeal.

¶37

On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader has submitted that there is no denying the fact that the appellant's wife underwent sterilisation. He has, however, insisted that the authorities are correct in their stand that it ought to have been in a hospital having Government accreditation.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶39

Indeed, the issue lies in a narrow compass. The bone of contention is that whether the appellant's wife ought to have undergone the sterilisation in a Government hospital or in a hospital having Government accreditation so that the appellant could be entitled to the benefit of an increment. As seen from the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, there is no dispute about the appellant's wife undergoing the sterilisation. A part of the second respondent’s affidavit, extracted, reads thus:

¶40

WA.1377/13

¶41

¶42

“4. It is respectfully submitted that though, as per the existing norms, the District Medical Officer (H), Palakkad is not authorized to counter sign the certificate issued by the Sandya Ram Hospital, Katampazhipuram, Palakkad in respect of sterilization done by the petitioner's wife since Sandya Ram hospital was not having FW accreditation for conducting sterilization operation as on 2005. Dr.Selvaraj, Dy District Medical Officer (H), Palakkad and Dr.Anitha Ponnukutty Gynecologist, W&C Hospital, palakkad have conducted an enquiry at Sandya Ram Hospital, Katampazhipuram. During the enquiry so conducted, registers and records at the Sandya Ram Hospital, katampazhipuram relating to the LSCS with steriliation of Smt.Radha, wife of the petitioner was verified and it was brought to light that she was admitted the hospital on 27.2.2005 as IP No.5664 and that she had undergone LSCS with sterilization on 27.2.2005. Dr.Anitha Ponnukutty had also personally examined Smt.Radha wife of the petitioner and has noticed that there was a well healed plannestein incision scar in the lower abdomen. She also suggested Hystero Salpingogram Procedure (HSG) or Laproscopy for confirmation of Tubal patency.”

¶43

After perusing the second respondent’s counter affidavit, we

¶44

reckon there is a force in the appellant’s contention that the scheme was modified in 1985. The amended provision is clear enough in holding that the sterilisation could be performed even by a private medical practitioner or in a private hospital. The only requirement on the employee’s part is that he has to get the certificate given by the private practitioner or hospital countersigned by a Civil Surgeon/District Medical Officer.

¶45

¶46

WA.1377/13

¶47

Ext. P3 is the appellant’s representation to the District Medical Officer concerned. As already observed, the DMO refused to countersign it on the premise that the appellant’s wife ought to have had the operation in a Government accredited hospital. The DMO’s refusal, we ought to conclude, is erroneous, especially in the light of the modified scheme, which held the field when the appellant’s wife underwent the sterilisaiton.

¶48

In our view, explicit is the scheme, which, read in conjunction with the second respondent’s affidavit, leaves no manner of doubt that the appellant is entitled to the benefit of increment as per the scheme. Accordingly, we find that the impugned judgment could not be sustained. We, therefore, set it aside.

¶49

Consequently, the second respondent, needless to observe, is required to countersign the certificate, on its resubmission to him, to enable the appellant to have his application processed further. The appellant may produce a copy of this judgment before the second respondent along with his representation. Because of the delay that has already occurred, the second respondent may process

¶50

WA.1377/13

¶51

¶52

the appellant’s representation expeditiously, at any rate within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶53

No order on costs.

¶54

Sd/ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge.

¶55

DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, Judge.

¶56

kkb.

¶57

/True copy/

¶58

PS to Judge

C.Unnikrishnan v. the Director of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Unnikrishnan v. the Director of Health Services

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Saj Batteries Private Limited Vs State of Kerala

M/S.Bharath Rock Products, Manjapra Vs State of Kerala

The Cochin Port Trust Vs M.Satheesan

The Commissioner, Central Excise Vs M/S.Muthoot Fincorp Limited

Karuvanthiruthy Service C0-OPERATIVE Bank Ltd. Vs the Income Tax Officer

M/S. Kairali Ayurvedic Health Resort Private Limited Vs the Commercial Tax Officer