Disposed

Nadeera M, v. the Karunagappally Municipality

Kerala HC29 Sept 2021WP(C)/8820/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition involves an Asha Worker alleging non-consideration of her reengagement representations filed with the Karunagappally Municipality and Taluk Hospital authorities. The High Court dispensed with notice to the Municipality and directed the authorities to dispose of the representation on merits within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representation on merits within two months after hearing.

Nadeera M, Vs the Karunagappally Municipality — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 29^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 7TH ASWINA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 8820 OF 2021

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

1 NADEERA M, AGED 49 YEARS D/O. MYTHEEN KUNJU, KATTIL NIVAS HOUSE, NAMBURU VIKALA, ALUMKADAVU P.O, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM – 690518. BY ADVS. PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN SMT.ASHA JOSE

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 THE KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY, KARUNAGAPPALLY KOLLAM - 690518, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶10

2 THE SECRETARY KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY, KOLLAM – 690518 3 SUPERINTENDENT, TALUK HOSPITAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY - 690518, (CONVENOR, ASHA WORKERS GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, KARUNAGAPPALLY) 4 DISTRICT PROGRAM MANAGER DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT SUPPORTING UNIT, NATIONAL RURAL HEALTH MISSION, KOLLAM - 691001, (CONVENOR, ASHA WORKERS DISTRICT GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, KOLLAM) BY ADVS. SMT. PARVATHY KOTTOL, GP SRI. M. AJAY, SC

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 8820 OF 2021

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

Dated this the 29^th day of September, 2021

¶16

The petitioner is an Asha Worker and was appointed after an interview conducted by the first respondent Municipality. According to her, seeking reengagement, after availing long leave in connection with the family affairs, the petitioner approached the first respondent as well as the fourth respondent by submitting Ext.P2 and Ext.P4 representations. The grievance of the petitioner is that both the representations are not being considered.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the fourth respondent took up the stand that the petitioner is engaged by the first respondent and the fourth respondent is not the authority who is to consider the representation.

¶18

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader and also the learned Counsel for the fourth respondent. I feel that the notice

¶19

to the first respondent can be dispensed with, since no

¶20

WP(C) NO. 8820 OF 2021

¶21

¶22

order adverse to them is being passed.

¶23

Accordingly, I am inclined to dispose of the

¶24

Writ Petition itself by directing the first respondent to take up Ext.P2 representation and dispose it of, in accordance with law, on merits, after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and also hearing the Public Health Authorities if required, either physically or by virtual mode, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶25

The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS

JUDGE

SKP/01-10

WP(C) NO. 8820 OF 2021

¶31

¶32

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8820/2021

¶33

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶34

EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL COMMITTEE DATED 20.02.2021.

¶35

EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 09.03.21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECRETARY, KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY.

¶36

EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE KARUNAGAPPALLY MUNICIPALITY EVIDENCING THE RECEIPT OF EXHIBIT P2.

¶37

EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 29.03.21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

¶38

EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT.

¶39

RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURE: NIL

¶40

TRUE COPY

¶41

P.A. TO JUDGE

Nadeera M, v. the Karunagappally Municipality

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nadeera M, v. the Karunagappally Municipality

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

P .S. Unnikrishnan Vs the Chakkittapara Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.F 1675

Retnamma, Vs a.Alexander I.A.S

Dr.Rency Simon Vs the Secretary

Paul Joseph Vs State of Kerala

Gopalan Thayathidavan Vs Kerala State Electricity Board

Gokul Sreekumar Vs Punjab National Bank