Allowed

Ganesh Bhat R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2022WP(C)/2278/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three connected writ petitions concerning service reckonings. It held that the Government failed to properly review policy changes regarding the 'Direct Payment System' and directed reconsideration of claims within four months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Government Order dated 02.04.2019 quashed. Government directed to reconsider claims with opportunity of hearing within four months.

Ganesh Bhat R Vs State of Kerala — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA, 1944

¶5

WP(C) NO. 20688 OF 2019

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 A.R.BALAGOPALAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.A.H. RANGANATHA KAMMATH, WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶8

2 L.NAGENDRA SHENOI, AGED 46 YEARS, S/O. LAKSHMANA SHENOY, WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶9

3 R.RAJESH, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.M.A.RAMACHANDRA PRABHU, WORKING AS L.D.CLERK, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶10

4 DR.MARY K.S., W/O SYRIAC, AGED 52 YEARS, CHETTIYAMKUNNEL HOUSE, PIRAVOM, WORKING AS MEDICAL OFFICER, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶11

5 DR.SALOMY GEORGE, MEDICAL OFFICER (RETIRED), DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312, RESIDING AT CHEMMAZHIKKAD HOUSE, VELIYANAD P.O., ARAKKUNNAM, PEPPATHY-682 313.

¶12

BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL

¶13

RESPONDENTS:

¶14

1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT (AYUSH), GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶15

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶16

-2-

¶17

2 THE PRINCIPAL AND CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMOEO MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶18

3 DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶19

4 THE PRINCIPAL, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶20

*ADDL.R5 THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶21

*IS IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 01-08-2019 IN IA 1/2019 IN WP(C)

¶22

SRI.JOSHY THANNICKKAMATTAM-GP SMT.R.RANJANIE

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).2278/2022, 32496/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶25

-3-

¶26

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶27

PRESENT

¶28

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶29

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA,

¶30

1944

¶31

WP(C) NO. 2278 OF 2022

¶32

PETITIONER:

¶33

GANESH BHAT R, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. LATE G. GOKHALE, L D CLERK, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, KALATHIL TEMPLE ROAD, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA-688534.

¶34

BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶35

RESPONDENTS:

¶36

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE (AYUSH) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001.

¶37

2 THE PRINCIPAL/SANCTIONING AUTHORITY/CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM-695501.

¶38

3 DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682312.

¶39

4 THE PRINCIPAL, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682312.

¶40

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶41

-4-

¶42

BY ADVS.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN R.RANJANIE SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM, GP

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).20688/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶44

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶45

-5-

¶46

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶47

PRESENT

¶48

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN

¶49

MONDAY, THE 14^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 23RD KARTHIKA,

¶50

1944

¶51

WP(C) NO. 32496 OF 2019

¶52

PETITIONER:

¶53

GANESH BHAT R., AGED 53 YEARS, S/O LATE G.GOKHALE, L D CLERK, DR PADIYAR MEMORIAL HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, RESIDING AT GOKULAM, KALATHIL TEMPLE ROAD, AROOR, ALAPPUZHA-688 534.

¶54

BY ADV NIDHI BALACHANDRAN

¶55

RESPONDENTS:

¶56

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (AYUSH) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695 001.

¶57

2 THE CENTRAL COUNCIL FOR HOMEOPATHY, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, ANUSANDHANAM BHAVAN, 61-65, INDUSTRIAL AREA, OPPOSITE TO “D” BLOCK JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058.

¶58

3 THE PRINCIPAL/SANCTIONING AUTHORITY/CONTROLLING OFFICER, GOVERNMENT HOMEOPATHIC MEDICAL COLLEGE, TRIVANDRUM-695 501.

¶59

4 DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DR.PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶60

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶61

-6-

¶62

5 THE PRINCIPAL, DR. PADIYAR MEMORIAL MEDICAL COLLEGE, CHOTTANIKKARA, ERNAKULAM-682 312.

¶63

BY ADVS.SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SMT.R.RANJANIE SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM, GP

¶64

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14.11.2022, ALONG WITH WP(C).20688/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶65

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶66

-7-

¶67

JUDGMENT

¶68

[WP(C) Nos.20688/2019, 2278/2022, 32496/2019]

¶69

These three writ petitions project a common

¶70

cause; and therefore, have been heard together.

¶71

The petitioners in these cases assert

¶72

that even though Government was directed by this

¶73

Court, through the judgment in W.A.No.1823/2017

¶74

and connected matters – a copy of which is on

¶75

record as Ext.P14 along with W.P. (C)No.20688/2019 - to specifically consider the claim that they ought to have been deemed to be brought within the ambit of the “Direct Payment System” (hereinafter referred to as “DPS”, for short), entered into by them with the “Doctor Padiyar Memorial Homeopathic Medical College” ('College', for short) on 11.05.2016, from the

¶76

date of their initial appointments several years prior, the impugned Ext.P16 in

¶77

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶78

-8-

¶79

W.P.(C)No.20688/2019 (which is the same as

¶80

Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.32496/2019) has been issued very tersely saying that since the Agreement

¶81

came into force from 11.05.2016, they can only

¶82

be construed to have entered into service from that date.

¶83

counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.

¶84

20688/2019 and Smt.Nidhi Balachandran – learned

¶85

counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos. 32496/2019 and 2278/2022, vehemently argued that

¶86

the impugned Government Order runs contrary to the directions in the judgment aforementioned because, after noticing that the “DPS” came into effect prospectively from 11.05.2016, Government

¶87

was directed to consider whether there was a

¶88

change in their policy, so as to bring the

¶89

petitioners within its sweep from an earlier

¶90

date, adverting to two earlier Government

¶91

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶92

-9-

¶93

Orders, which are marked as Exts.P20 and P21 in

¶94

the said judgment. They point out that first

¶95

among the said orders has been produced as

¶96

Ext.P17 along with W.P.(C)No.20688/2019; and

¶97

thus prayed that the impugned order of the

¶98

Government be set aside and they be directed to reconsider the matter forthwith.

¶99

While so, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.

¶100

32496/2019 filed W.P.(C)No.2278/2022, seeking

¶101

that he be included in the National Pension

¶102

Scheme (NPS) – since he had retired by then –

¶103

construing that he had been brought within the regular roll of the College, from the date of his initial appointment, namely in the year 2009.

¶104

– 5. Smt.R.Ranjanie learned counsel

¶105

appearing for the College, submitted that,

¶106

though her client does not want to join issues

¶107

in these cases, the fact remains that

¶108

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶109

-10-

¶110

petitioners were appointed much prior to 11.05.2016, along with other staffs and that they were continuously working ever since the introduction of the “DPS” in the College.

¶111

The learned Government Pleader –

¶112

Sri.Joshy Thannickamattam, submitted that this Court, in the judgment in W.A.No.1823/2017 and connected matters, had never declared that

¶113

petitioners would be entitled to reckon service from a date anterior to 11.05.2016; but conceded that this Court directed the Government to reconsider the matter, adverting to two earlier Government Orders produced as Exts.P20 and P21 therein. He argued that this has been done and that the impugned order merely records that, notwithstanding Exts.P20 and P21 mentioned in the judgment in W.A.No.1823/2017, the

¶114

petitioners can be given benefits only prospectively after 11.05.2016, being the date

¶115

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶116

-11-

¶117

on which the “DPS” came into force.

¶118

I am afraid that I cannot find favour

¶119

with the afore submissions of Sri.Joshy

¶120

Thannickamattam because this Court, in the

¶121

judgment in W.A.No.1823/2017 and connected cases, had specifically noticed that the “DPS” came into force prospectively with effect from

¶122

11.05.2016; and that, normally, no employee

¶123

could have sought any benefit prior to it.

¶124

notice of a learned Bench that Government itself had earlier issued two orders – produced as Exts.P20 and P21 therein – through which a

¶125

person was given regularization in service with effect from 01.07.2008. This led to a suspicion that, perhaps the Government had changed their policy, particularly when, in the earlier round of litigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had

¶126

found that, without such a change in policy,

¶127

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶128

-12-

¶129

Government cannot be imposed with the liability to reckon the services of the petitioners prior to 11.05.2016 to be on the regular roll of the College.

¶130

One of the aforesaid orders - namely

¶131

Ext.P20 mentioned in the judgment of the learned Division Bench - has been produced as Ext.P17 in W.P.(C)No.20688/2019, which relates to the case

¶132

of a certain Sri.Vishnu Prasad, who was appointed as a Watcher in the College with

¶133

effect from 01.07.2008.

¶134

Indubitably, therefore, what was

¶135

directed by the learned Division Bench was that Government will look into the aforesaid aspect and take a decision whether their policy had been changed, since otherwise, appointment of the aforementioned Sri.Vishnu Prasad as a

¶136

Watcher with effect from 01.07.2008 could not,

¶137

normally, have been granted.

¶138

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶139

-13-

¶140

However, instead of doing as afore,

¶141

Government has now been issued their impugned order dated 02.04.2019, merely saying that, since the petitioners were included in the “DPS”

¶142

from 11.05.2016, their service can only be reckoned to start from that date. This was certainly not the way of the Government was expected to act under the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1823/2017 and connected matters; and it is obvious from the said order that they have refused to even consider the impact of Ext.P17 order in W.P.(C)No.20688/2019, which had been produced as Ext.P20 therein.

¶143

In the afore circumstances, I dispose of

¶144

these writ petitions with the following directions:

¶145

(a) W.P.(C)No.20688/2019 is allowed

¶146

and Ext.P16 is quashed.

¶147

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶148

-14-

¶149

(b) W.P.(C)No.32496/2019 is allowed

¶150

and Ext.P17 is quashed.

¶151

¶152

the claims of the petitioners, adverting implicitly to the judgment of this Court in W.A.1823/2017 and connected cases, after affording them,

¶153

as also the College, necessary opportunity of being heard again; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible, but not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶154

(d) Corollary to the above, it is ordered that the claims of the

¶155

petitioners, including W.P. (C)No.2278/2022, to be included in the

¶156

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶157

-15-

¶158

“DPS”, shall depend upon the decision to be taken as afore; and if it is found that their services are liable to be reckoned from the date on which

¶159

they were initially appointed or subsequent thereto, then necessary orders in that regard shall also be issued and which shall form part in the order resultant to the above

¶160

directions.

¶161

Sd/-

¶162

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE

¶163

akv

¶164

-16-

¶165

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶166

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2278/2022

¶167

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶168

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.99.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2000 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) NO.100/2000 H & FHD DATED 25.4.00 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 99/02 DATED 25.4.02 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) DATED 2.9.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.3690/2009/H&FWD DATED 18.12.09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(MS) 142/12/H&FWD DATED 14.5.12 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.DPMHMC/21/12/AO DATED 6.12.12 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT RELIEVING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.195/2016/AYUSH DATED 11.5.16 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.7.18 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER & OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶169

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶170

-17-

¶171

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O.(RT) NO.200/2019/AYUSH DATED 2.4.19 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.7.21 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 1.1.22 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 31.12.21 (REFERRED AS 2 IN EXHIBIT P15) ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (ORDINARY) NO.2314/2017/FIN DATED 27.3.17 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

¶172

-18-

¶173

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶174

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 32496/2019

¶175

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶176

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 1.3.99
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1.3.2000 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO 100/2000 H & FHD DATED 25.4.2000 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE GO (MS) 99/02 DATED 25.4.02 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN OP 25592/2000 DATED 3.3.05
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1530/04 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 17.6.05
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) DATED 2.9.06 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO 1152-1153 OF 2009 DATED 23.2.09
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 3690/2009/H& FWD DATED 18.12.09 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) 142/12/H & FWD DATED 14.5.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO

¶177

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶178

-19-

¶179

DPMHMC/21/12/AO DATED 6/12/12 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT RELIEVING THE PETITIONER FROM SERVICE

¶180

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 16.2.2015 WITHOUT ANNEXURE IN WPC 1540/13 EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT DATED 30.10.2015 IN WPC 1540/13 EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 195/2016 AYUSH DATED 11.5.2016 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 21.6.18 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WA 1823.1973,2020,2159,2168, 2034 OF 2017 & WA 125 OF 2018 EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 10.7.2018 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER OTHERS BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P17 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(RT) NO 200/2019/AYUSH DATED 2.4.2019 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P18 TRUE COPY OF THE GO(MS) NO0 185/2012 H&FWD DATED 18.6.2012 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P19 TRUE COPY OF THE SERVICE DETAILS OF THE PETITIONER FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 30.4.11 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12.7.21 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶181

-20-

¶182

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶183

¶184

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶185

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 25.04.200 VIDE G.O(MS) NO.100/2000/F & HWD
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE G.O(MS) NO.99/2002/H & FWD DATED 25.04.2002 FIXED THE STAFF STRENGTH IN THE COLLEGE
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. VIDE G.O(RT) NO.517/2001/H & FWD DATED 20.02.2011
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 16.11.2001 IN THE CHAMBER OF THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.NO.25592/2000 DATED 03.03.2005
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1530 OF 2004 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.1152- 1153 OF 2009
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF G.O(RT) NO. 3690/2009/H & FWD DATED 18.12.2009
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE KERALA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM IN HRMF 26042.2012 DATED 03.11.2012
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2012 ISSUED BY THE COLLEGE IN

¶186

WP(C) NO.20688/2019 & Con.Cases

¶187

-21-

¶188

	THE NAME OF THE 2ND PETITIONER
EXHIBIT P11	TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 08.01.2013 IN W.P.(C) NO.606/2013
EXHIBIT P12	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.606/2013
EXHIBIT P13	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 11.05.2016 VIDE G.O(RT) NO.195/2016/AYUSH
EXHIBIT P14	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.1973/2017 AND CONNECTED CASES
EXHIBIT P15	TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT
EXHIBIT P16	TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER VIDE G.O(RT) NO.200/2019/AYUSH DATED 02.04.2019
EXHIBIT P17	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER BY WHICH SRI.VISHNU PRASAD, THE WATCHER OF THE HOSPITAL WAS APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT EFFECT FROM 01.07.2008
EXHIBIT P18	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 4TH PETITIONER DATED 08.07.2019
EXHIBIT P19	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C) NO.16437/2009

¶189

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

¶190

//TRUE COPY//

¶191

P.A. TO JUDGE

Ganesh Bhat R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesh Bhat R 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abdul Salam K., Vs P.v.Saseendran

Adv. Latheefa Vs State of Kerala

Amrutha Devan C. Vs Kerala State Co-Operative Bank Ltd.

Febina a.P., Vs the State of Kerala

The Principal Vs 1. Dr.Jyothsna

The Principal Vs 1. Aleena Davis