IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 5TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 261 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.20906/2009 Dated 07/09/2009 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN WPC NO.20906/09 ------------------------------------------- M.BALA SUBRAMANNIAN, MUSLIAYATH HOUSE, CHETHALLUR, MANNARKKAD,PALAKKAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN WPC NO. 20906/09 ---------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVT. REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL(A & E), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. GOVT.PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.261 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- Dated 24th February, 2010. J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The writ petitioner is the appellant. The brief facts of the case are the following : The appellant was a person included in the rank list published by the Public Service Commission(for short, 'PSC'), on 27.6.1986, for appointment to the post of Village Assistant, in Palakkad District. During the currency of the rank list, no vacancies were reported to the PSC and therefore, the appellant was not appointed. According to the appellant, though vacancies were available for direct recruitment, they were not reported, because of the commissions and omissions of the appointing authority. The above grievance was represented by him, before the Government. He also filed O.P.No.5978/2000 before this Court and this Court, by judgment dated 25.2.2001, directed the Government to consider his representation. Finally, the Government passed Ext.P1 order on 12.11.2001, directing the appointing authority to appoint the appellant as Village Assistant/Lower Division Clerk, in the Palakkad Revenue establishment. This order was passed, notwithstanding the fact WA NO.261/2010 2 that the appellant was rank No.18 in the list. Pursuant to Ext.P1 order of the Government, the appellant was appointed, by Ext.P2 order, as L.D.Clerk/Village Assistant. The appellant retired from service on 31.5.2007, without completing ten years' service. In that context, he filed Ext.P3 representation dated 8.12.2006 before the Government, claiming that he may be notionally appointed with retrospective effect from 1988, so that he could draw pensionary benefits. As per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.7314/2007, the said representation was considered and rejected by Ext.P5. Challenging Ext.P5, W.P.(C) No.20668/08 was filed. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by Ext.P7 judgment, directing the Government to consider granting ex- gratia pension to him. In the light of that judgment, the appellant filed Ext.P8 representation before the Government. The Government by Ext.P9 order dated 15.12.2008, ordered to grant ex-gratia pension to him, at the rate of Rs.1,200/- per month. The Writ Petition was filed, seeking the following reliefs :- “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Ext.P5 and quash the same and also Ext.P9 in so far as it denies the notional promotion and regular pension; (ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the first respondent to give notional promotion to the petitioner with effect from WA NO.261/2010 3 27.6.1986 and to revise the pensionary benefits due to the petitioner. (iii)issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd respondent to revise and re-fix the pensionary benefits fixed as per Ext.P9 and grant the arrears thereof within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court. (iv) issue such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” We notice that in view of Ext.P7 judgment, the above prayers are barred. By the said judgment, what was directed was to consider granting of ex-gratia pension, though the appellant prayed for retrospective appointment and other benefits. In view of the above position, we find nothing wrong with the decision of the learned Single Judge, repelling the challenge against Ext.P9. Ext.P1 was a concession granted to the appellant, which was in fact denied to the persons included as rank Nos.1 to 17 in the rank list. In view of the above position, the appellant has no reason to demur. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. P.N.RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. tgs K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & P.N.RAVINDRAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- W.A. No.261 of 2010 ---------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T Dated 24th February, 2010.