IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 R.P.No. 283 of 2010 ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WA.1499/2002 Dated 08/11/2002 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER / APPELLANT IN W.A.: --------------------------------------------------------------------- K.R.SUKUMARA PISHARODY, RETD.PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MANAGING DIRECTOR,E.R.C.M.P.U. (ERNAKULAM REGIONAL CO-OPERTIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION), EDAPPALLY, NOW RESIDING AT KRISHNAKRIPA, EAST DESOM, DESOM P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 683 102. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.K.BALACHANDRAN (PN) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN W.A.: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP.BY THE SECRETARY, AGRICULTURE (DAIRY) DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E), KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C.M.Appln.35 OF 2010 & R.P.No.283 OF 2010 in W.A.No.1499 OF 2002 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of March 2010 ORDER Basheer, J. The prayer in this miscellaneous application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is to condone the delay of 2623 days in filing the review petition. 2. Petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated November 8, 2002 in W.A.1499/02 contending interalia that the benefit of weightage available to him as provided under Rule 56 (vii) Part III Kerala Service Rules ought to have been granted to him also as had been done in the case of similarly situated persons who had worked in the same department. 3. Admittedly, the above claim made by the petitioner before the Government was rejected as early as in February 1996. He challenged the above decision before this court in O.P.10684/96. A learned Single judge of this court dismissed the original petition against which he filed W.A.1499/02. The writ appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench on November 8, 2002 confirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is beyond controversy that the Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner before the apex court was also dismissed on March 13, 2003. C.M.Appln.35 OF 2010 & R.P.No.283 OF 2010 in W.A.No.1499 OF 2002 :: 2 :: 4. But it is contended by the petitioner that another learned Single Judge of this court in O.P.9122/01 had taken a different view and granted the benefit of weightage to the petitioner in that case. The Government had complied with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge in this regard as is evident from Annexure A4(a). He further points out that in the case of some other employees also the Government had taken a similar view as could be seen from Annexure A5(b) order of the Government. 5. But when the petitioner approached the Government praying for a similar treatment, his prayer was rejected by the Government as reflected in Annexure A9 letter, dated, January 20, 2010. It is at this stage that the petitioner has preferred the review petition with a prayer that the judgment in W.A.1499/02 be reviewed and he also be granted the benefit of weightage as in the case of some of his colleagues after condoning the delay of 2623 days. 6. As mentioned earlier, after dismissal of the writ appeal by the Division Bench, petitioner had unsuccessfully challenged the above judgment before the apex court. Thus, the matter was concluded way back in March 2003. But it is contended by the petitioner that one K.P.Padmanabha Kurup of the same department had been given the benefit of weightage in 2001 by this court. Still later in 2004, some other employees were also given the same benefit. It is contended by the petitioner that he is also entitled to get the C.M.Appln.35 OF 2010 & R.P.No.283 OF 2010 in W.A.No.1499 OF 2002 :: 3 :: same benefit. But he concedes that since the division bench judgment had sealed his fate way back in 2002, he cannot now challenge the decision taken by the Government on his representation. While trying to explain the inordinate delay, it is contended by the petitioner that there was no laches on his part. 7. We are afraid, the above contention is wholly misconceived and untenable. Petitioner cannot be allowed to reopen an issue which had admittedly become final more than seven years ago; and that too on a specious plea that the Government had given similar benefit to certain others. 8. We do not find any justifiable reason to condone the inordinate delay not only for the reason that delay has not been properly explained but also since no ground has been made out to entertain the review petition. Therefore, the delay petition is dismissed. Consequently, review petition is also dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes