Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

P.BALAKRISHNAN, RETD, EXECUTIVE versus THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


P.BALAKRISHNAN, RETD, EXECUTIVE v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT - WP(C) No. 7410 of 2007(F) [2007] RD-KL 4792 (6 March 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 7410 of 2007(F)

1. P.BALAKRISHNAN, RETD, EXECUTIVE
... Petitioner

Vs

1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
... Respondent

2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER,

For Petitioner :SRI.S.JAYAKRISHNAN

For Respondent : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice A.K.BASHEER

Dated :06/03/2007

O R D E R

A.K. BASHEER, J.

W.P.(C). NO. 7410 OF 2007

Dated this the 6th day of March, 2007



J U D G M E N T

Petitioner, who had admittedly retired as Executive Engineer from the Public Works Department way back in the year 1992, has filed this writ petition with a prayer to quash Ext.P6 order dated July 11, 2002 issued by the Government rejecting his claim for notional benefits.

2. It is contended by the petitioner that he had been clamouring for certain notional benefits ever since his retirement in the year 1992. But the Government had not responded to those representations. Ultimately, petitioner had issued Ext.P4 legal notice on February 13, 2006 alerting the Government that unless his grievance was redressed appropriately, legal action would be initiated to get the relief prayed for. In response to Ext.P4, Government had issued Ext.P5 communication on May 6, 2006. The relevant paragraph in Ext.P5, which is self- explanatory, is extracted hereunder: WPC NO.7410/07 Page numbers

"In your notice you have mentioned that the File No. 4890/D2/00/F&PD connected with the matter is pending with Government for final decision and that now it was missing from the department. But that is not true. On the basis of the representation dated 9.3.2000 and 23.1.93 received from Sri. P. Balakrishnan and also on the basis of Judgment dated 13.1.93 in OP No.7803/83 the request of Shri. Balakrishnan, that he may be treated as absorbed in the Vizhinjam Fishery Harbour Project as Assistant Executive Engineer on 27.7.77 (i.e. With the date of issuance of GO(P) No-96/77/DD dated 27.7.77 transferring Vizhinjam Fishery Harbour Project to harbour Engineering Wing of Port Department) and to give further promotions as Executive Engineer, Superintending Engineer and Chief Engineer on due dates in accordance with seniority, with all monetary benefits and Pension revision, was examined in detail and a reply was already given to him in his home address on 23.7.2002 vide Government letter No.4890/D2/00/F&PD 11-7-2002. A copy of the letter is enclosed for reference."

3. Along with Ext.P5, the Government had forwarded a copy of the order dated July 11,2002 , which has been produced by the petitioner as Ext.P6.

4. It is the case of the Government that Ext.P6 had been communicated to the petitioner in his residential address way back in the year 2002 itself. But the petitioner pretends that he had not received it. His case is that he had been sending representations in this regard ever since 2002 or even much earlier. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the assertion made by the Government in Ext.P5 communication that Ext.P6 order WPC NO.7410/07 Page numbers had been sent to the petitioner in his residential address way back in the year 2002 itself.

5. Further, it is admitted by the petitioner that he sent Ext.P4 legal notice in the year 2006. It is also pertinent to note that Ext.P5 was issued by the Government in May 2006. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition only in March 2007.

6. I have perused the relevant materials placed by the petitioner on record and also considered the contentions raised by him in this writ petition. I am satisfied that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in the writ petition at this distance of time. Laches and delay are writ large on the face of the record. I am not satisfied that discretionary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be exercised in favour of the petitioner. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE

vps WPC NO.7410/07 Page numbers

KURIAN JOSEPH, JUDGE

OP NO.

JUDGMENT

WPC NO.7410/07 Page numbers 21st DECEMBER, 2006


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.