MERCY BABU NURSING ASSISTANT Vs. SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are five petitioners. Petitioners 1 and 4 have been working as Nursing Assistants, Petitioners 3 and 5 have been working as Staff Nurses and the second petitioner is working as Attender in the District Hospital, Mananthavady, Wayanad district. It is stated that they were provided work for 28 days in every month with an artificial break of two days and such an arrangement has been going on from 2001 onwards. There is no case for anybody that the service rendered by the petitioners was not satisfactory. There is also no case that the service of Nursing Assistants, Attenders and Staff Nurses are no more required. Even then the respondents 1 and 2 took a decision to terminate the services of these petitioners abruptly. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the decision to terminate the services of the petitioners is totally arbitrary and inequitous. The only reason for terminating the services of the petitioners is to engage another set of workers. Counsel would submit that such displacement of the petitioners ought not to have been done. He also contends that respondents 1 and 2 did not pay any heed to the hardships and financial difficulties to which the poor petitioners will be subjected to and that indulgence ought to have been shown to them by the respondents. Counsel submits that the respondents took hasty steps to see that the petitioners are sent out of service.

(2.) Having regard to the above submissions, Government Pleader was directed to seek instructions from the respondents as to what had transpired.

(3.) Today, when the matter has come up once again for consideration, it is submitted that the termination order has already taken effect. Counsel for the petitioner submits that due information was passed on to respondents 1 and 2 to maintain the status quo, having regard to the pendency of the writ petition, but that communication was discarded and the petitioners' services have been terminated.