Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M.UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D.CLERK versus STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M.UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D.CLERK v. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS - WP(C) No. 25400 of 2007(W) [2007] RD-KL 16189 (21 August 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 25400 of 2007(W)

1. M.UNNIKRISHNAN, U.D.CLERK,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY ITS
... Respondent

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REVENUE,

3. THE KERALA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,

For Petitioner :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC

Dated :21/08/2007

O R D E R

ANTONY DOMINIC,J.

W.P ( C) No. 75400 of 2007

Dated this the 21st day of August, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Exhibit-P7 representation was made by the petitioner on 19.3.2006 claiming restoration of his seniority with effect from 23.9.1993. This was declined by the Government and it is challenging Exhibit-P8 that this writ petition has been filed.

2. From the pleadings, it is evident that following Exhibit-P3 order of the Supreme Court, Exhibit-P4 order was issued by the 1st respondent on 30.6.2000 directing that advice be issued to the petitioner but, however, the same will be effective from the date of order. Following this Exhibits P5 and P6 were issued on 5.12.2000 and 29.12.2000 respectively appointing the petitioner as Lower Division Clerk/Village Assistant. Consequent on the condition imposed in Exhibit-P4, similar conditions were also imposed in Exhibits P5 and P6. Accordingly the petitioner's seniority was only from the date of Exhibit-P4.

3. The challenge in this writ petition is confined to Exhibit-P8, but the basic orders, namely, Exhibits P5 and P6 are not challenged even now and it is obviously due to the delay involved in challenging Exhibits P4, P5 and P6. I find that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and cannot be allowed to be revived now. Writ petition, therefore, lacks any merit and it is dismissed.

(ANTONY DOMINIC,JUDGE)

ma

K.THANKAPPAN,J

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

ORDER

25th May, 2007


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.