Dismissed

Antony J v. Hospital Development Society (Hdc)

Kerala HC23 Mar 2018WP(C)/10148/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged confirmation of his termination as a Security Guard, alleging non-service of a previous relief order. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner slept over his rights for six years without seeking further remedies.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner slept over his rights by not approaching the court or filing representations for six years.

Antony J Vs Hospital Development Society (Hdc) — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 2ND CHAITHRA,1940

¶5

WP(C).No. 10148 of 2018

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

ANTONY J, S/O.M.JOSEPH, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT 'LARENE VILLA', TC 34/600(2), KANNANTHURA, BEACH P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 007.

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.G.SIVASANKAR SRI.A.JANI(KOLLAM)

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. HOSPITAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE (HDC), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.

¶11

2. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION, VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶12

3. DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES, DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH SERVICES, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.

¶13

4. DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), VANCHIYOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.

¶14

5. SUPERINTENDENT, GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035.

¶15

BY SR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BIJOY CHANDRAN

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

sts

¶18

5/4/2018

¶19

WP(C).No. 10148 of 2018 (P)

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶22

EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA POLICE IN CRIME NO.1056/11. EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE KERALA POLICE IN CRIME NO.1056/11. EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT SUBMITTED BY DR.L.VASANTHAKUMARI, RCHO,GENERAL HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHPAURAM (DATED NIL). EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION BEARING NO.10901/2011/GHT DATED 9.12.2011. EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY REGIONAL VIGILANCE SQUAD-I DATED 21.2.2012. EXHIBIT P6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.10645/2012(E) DATED 15.06.2012. EXHIBIT P7 THE TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.NRHM/4673/CA/2012/SPMSU DATED 16.08.2012.

¶23

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts 5/4/2018

P.V.ASHA, J.

W.P.(C) No.10148 of 2018-P

¶30

Dated this the 23^rd day of March, 2018

¶31

JUDGMENT

¶32

The petitioner, who was working as a Security Guard in the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram under the Hospital Development Committee, had approached this Court earlier, after his suspension consequent to certain allegations of misconduct and this Court as per Ext.P6 judgment in WP(C) No.10645 of 2012 dated 15.6.2012 directed the Hospital Development Committee to consider Ext.P10 representation against suspension, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in that writ petition. The petitioner submits that Ext.P7 order was served on the 2^nd petitioner in WP(C) No.10645 of 2012 who had approached this Court along with him in which it is stated that the Hospital Development Committee has already decided to confirm the decision they had taken on 11.6.2012 to terminate the services of the petitioner and Sri.Shajahan.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a provisional decision was already taken by the Hospital Development Committee on 11.6.2012 and that fact was not divulged before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of as per Ext.P6 judgment. It is also his case that the copy of Ext.P7 order was not served on him. Apart from the contention that the copy of order Ext.P7 was not

¶34

:2:

¶35

W.P.(C) No.10148/18

¶36

served on the petitioner, no reason is stated by the petitioner for not approaching this Court or for not taking any further proceedings subsequent to Ext.P6 judgment. In case the petitioner was vigilant he would not have waited for six years. Even though the petitioner says that copy of order was not served on him on the ground that there is a tick mark in Ext.P7 only against the name of Sri.Shajahan, I am of the view that this tick mark may be available against the name of the petitioner only in the copy which is to be served to him. On that ground this Court cannot come to a conclusion that copy of the order was not served on the petitioner. A person who had already approached this Court in the year 2012 cannot be heard to contend that he was waiting for an order from the respondents. There is not even a representation seen made to the respondents in the meanwhile.

¶37

In the above circumstances, I do not find any reason to exercise my discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the persons who were sleeping over their rights, if any. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

¶38

P.V.ASHA JUDGE

¶39

rkc

Antony J v. Hospital Development Society (Hdc)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Antony J v. Hospital Development Society (Hdc)

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

Anish K.S. Vs Augustine Thomas

Usha Nair Vs the Panmana Grama Panchayat

Sunil Kumar Vs the Food Corporation of India

P. Chandrasekharan, IPS (Retired) Vs State of Kerala

S. Gireesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sajeev K Vs Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd.