Kerala High Court
State Mission Director vs Anoop P. Paulose on 3 July, 2025
W.A.No.753 of 2024 1 2025:KER:48129
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
RD
THURSDAY, THE 3
DAY OF JULY 2025 / 12TH ASHADHA,
1947
WA NO. 753 OF 2024
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2024 IN WP(C)
NO.39612 OF 2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:
1 TATE MISSION DIRECTOR, S NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, GENERAL HOSPITAL JUNCTION, THIRUVANATHAPURAM-695 035. 2 ISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER (HEALTH), D CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF DISTRICT HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY, AROGYAKERALAM, THRISSUR-680 001. 3 ISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER, D NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, AROGYAKERALAM, OLD DISTRICT HOSPITAL COMPOUND, ROUND EAST, THRISSUR 680 001. BY ADV SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION W.A.No.753 of 2024 2 2025:KER:48129 RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: NOOP P PAULOSE , A AGED 35 YEARS S/O P.V.PAULOSE, RESIDING AT PARNAYIL HOUSE, PATTIKKAD POST, MANJAKKUNNU, THRISSUR - 680 652. BY ADV SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON HIS T WRIT APPEAL HAVING HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30.06.2025, THE COURT ON 03.07.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.No.753 of 2024 3 2025:KER:48129 JUDGMENT Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. ThepresentintracourtappealunderSection5oftheKeralaHigh Court Act, 1958, assails the judgment dated 11.04.2024 passed in W.P(C)No.39612 of 2022, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowedthewritpetitionbyquashingExt.P21order.Thewritpetitionwas filed by the respondent herein. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent while working asDistrictUrbanHealthCo-ordinatorundertheArogyakeralam (National Health Mission), Thrissur, was issued with Ext.P8 memo alleging that a few face masks were found in the office premises and was directed to offer explanation. After receiving the explanation, the respondentwasdirectedtoattendanenquiryon18.01.2022.Thereafter therespondentwasgrantedopportunityofhearingandtheenquirywas conducted in a fair manner. On 21.03.2022, Ext.P16orderwaspassed bythe3rdappellantterminatingtherespondentinvokingClause9ofthe agreement.TherespondentchallengedtheterminationbeforethisCourt in W.P(C)No.10871 of 2022 and vide judgment dated 08.08.2022 the writ petition was disposed of setting aside the order of termination on the ground that dismissal from service is definitely stigmatic in nature. W.A.No.753 of 2024 4 2025:KER:48129 Thereaftertheappellantsincompliancewiththedirectionsissuedbythis Court, passed another order; namely, Ext.P21 dated 29.11.2022 invoking Clause 10 of the agreement. Beingaggrieved,therespondent had filed W.P(C)No.39612 of 2022 which came to be decided by the impugnedjudgmentbysettingasideExt.P21onthegroundthatthesaid orderwasnotpassedincompliancewiththejudgmentpassedinearlier writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside. 3.ThelearnedcounselfortherespondentcontendedthatExt.P21 was not only liable to be set aside, but that the appointment of the respondent ought to have been reviewed in accordance with the agreement, which aspect was not considered by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it was submitted that directions be issued to the competent authority to consider the respondent's case afresh for engagement on contract basis. 4.Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantssubmittedthat,sincethe appeal has been filed bytheappellants,noreliefcanbegrantedtothe respondentinthisappeal.Therespondenthasacceptedboththeorders passed by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, apart from quashing Ext.P21, no further directions were issued by the learned Single Judge. W.A.No.753 of 2024 5 2025:KER:48129 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. The learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P21 and did not issue any further directions regarding the subsequent course of action. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the respondent's contractual period expired on 31.03.2022, whereas the decision to discontinue the respondent'sengagementwasmadeon21.03.2022.At most, the respondent could be entitled to 10 days' salary. However, considering that the appellants initiated action under Clause 10 of the agreement, which provides for 15 days' salary in lieu of notice, the question of paying 10 days' salary does not arise. Hence, no further orders are necessary in this case. Admittedly, the respondent is not beforeusinappealastheappellant;therefore,theorderpassedbythe learned Single Judge cannot be modified. Accordinglythewritappealisherebydismissed.Theorderpassed by the learned Single Judge is upheld. No order as to costs. Sd/- SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/- SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE MC/01.07