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
