IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2008 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 WP(C).No. 36168 of 2008(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- V.P.SURESH, CHANDINI SADAN, ATHIRAKAM, MUNDAYAD.P.O,KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.PAREETH SRI.MOHAMMED SHAMEEL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP.BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATIONAL DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KANNUR. 4. ASSISTANT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,KANNUR NORTH SUB DISTRICT, KANNUR. 5. MANAGER, ATHIRUKAM UP SCHOOL, MUNDAYAD. PO,KANNUR DISTRICT. 6. HEADMISTRESS, ATHIRUKAM UP SCHOOL, MUNDAYAD.P.O, KANNUR DISTRICT. SHRI.A.J.VARGHESE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36168 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2008 J U D G M E N T The petitioner claims that he was working as a Peon under the 5th respondent from 01/07/1961. In this writ petition he complains about the inaction on the part of the respondents in considering his representation claiming pensionary benefits. But it would appear that from the records that the Manager has taken the stand that the petitioner had resigned from service with effect from 14/08/1978. The petitioner submits that theory of resignation is factually incorrect. According to him, while he was bedridden, the Manager obtained some blank papers signed by him and by misusing the same the story of resignation was cooked up. 2. In my view, first of all, the claim raised is highly belated and secondly it is not possible for this Court to resolve the factual dispute in a proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 3. The fact that if the petitioner had continued in service he would have retired only in 2003 and therefore the claim now made is not belated, is also erroneous. In my view, if at all, the petitioner had any grievance, he should have raised his claim within a reasonable time, which he has not done. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg