Kerala High Court
S.Thankappan Aged 66 Years vs Stateof Kerala on 11 July, 2013
Author: Antony Dominic
Bench: Antony Dominic
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAAT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012/24TH MAGHA 1933
WA.No. 1220 of 2013 () IN WP(C).16887/2013
--------------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 16887/2013 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA
DATED 11-07-2013
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN WPC:
------------------------------------------------------
1. S.THANKAPPAN AGED 66 YEARS
S/O.SANKARAN, CHAKKANTHARA HOUSE,
AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA.
2. JACOB XAVIER, AGED 62 YEARS
KANDATHIL HOUSE, P.D.ROAD,
PALLURUTHY, KOCHI - 6.
3. M.MOHANACHANDRAN, AGED 62 YEARS,
S/O.MADHAVAN PILLAI, S.M.BHAVAN,
THETTIKUZHI, NEAR KUNNATHUKUZHI,
KUDAPPANAKUNNU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
4. STEPHEN LUIS, AGED 58 YEARS
CHERUPUNATHIL HOUSE,
THEVARA, KOCHI - 13
NOW RESIDING AT MOOLEPARAMBIL, PONNARIMANGALAM
MULAVUKADU.
BY ADVS.SRI.A.X.VARGHESE
SRI.A.V.JOJO
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN WPC:
-----------------------------------------------------------
1. STATEOF KERALA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT, GOVT.SECRETARIAT
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.
2. THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION FOR FISHERIES
DEVELOPMENT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MATSYAFED
KAMALESWARAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, KERALA STATECO-OPERATIVE FEDERATION
FOR FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT LTD
(MATSYAFED)KAMALESWARAM
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.
4. THE DISTRICT MANAGER, MATSYAFED DISTRICT OFFICE,
ERNAKULAM PIN - 682 001.
R2-R4 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM, SC,MATSYAFED
R1 BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI S.JAMAL
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-02-2012, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ANTONY DOMINIC & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.
--------------------------------------------------
Writ Appeal No.1220 of 2013
--------------------------------------------------
DATED THIS THE 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2014
JUDGMENT
ANTONY DOMINIC,J.
This appeal is filed by the petitioners in W.P.(C)No.16887/13, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. In the Writ Petition, the appellants sought to quash Exhibit P11 and a declaration that they are entitled to get salary and other allowances on par with the regular employees of the 2nd respondent. The learned Single Judge held that though Exhibit P11 order was issued on 3.10.2012, the appellants filed the Writ Petition with an unexplained and inordinate delay, only on 3.7.2013. On that basis, the Writ Petition was dismissed, which judgment is under challenge before us.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned Government Pleader appearing for the 1st respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4.
3. The claim in the Writ Petition is essentially that treating the appellants as regular employees of the 2nd respondent, they should be given the monetary benefits. That claim is raised on the W.A.No.1220/13 -2- basis that as a result of Exhibit P1 judgment, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Exhibit P2, the appellants were entitled to be regularised in the service of the 2nd respondent.
4. Exhibits P1 and P2 judgments were rendered on 23.1.1996 and 26.10.2005. Admittedly, based on the judgment, the appellants' services were not regularised and according to the Bank, as on the date of Exhibit P1 judgment, since the appellants were not on the rolls of the 2nd respondent, they were not entitled to such regularisation.
5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that until they made Exhibit P8 representation dated 17.1.2011, which led to Exhibit P11 order, the appellants did not claim the benefit of Exhibits P1 and P2. Therefore, the very representation made by the appellants was highly belated and was in relation to a stale claim. The learned counsel for the appellants claimed that the appellants are entitled to parity with the person mentioned in Exhibit P7. That again is a claim which is highly belated and therefore we are not going to take cognizance of the same.
6. The learned counsel then contended that the claim of W.A.No.1220/13 -3- the appellants is for monetary benefits and therefore, even if the law of limitation is made applicable, the appellants are entitled to get the monetary benefits released at least from three years prior to the institution of the Writ Petition. Though, on principle, this contention is correct, insofar as the appellants are concerned, they could have raised such monetary claim only if their services were regularised and since such regularisation was not ordered in their case, this contention also has no force.
7. We also agree with the learned Single Judge that in filing the Writ Petition only on 3.7.2013, there occurred a delay and the explanation offered in the affidavit was not satisfactory. In such circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE dsn