IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 WP(C).No. 33295 of 2010(J) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- N.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, VALAVAKOTT ILLOM, PANACHAMOODU, MAVELIKKARA PO. BY ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. DEVASWOM BOARD COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,NANTHANCODE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, MAVELIKKARA GROUP,TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, MAVELIKKARA. 4. THE SUB GROUP OFFICER, MAJOR KANDIYOOR MAHADEVA TEMPLE, MAVELIKKARA. ADV.SHRI.P.GOPAL, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No.33295 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an employee of the Travancore Devaswom Board. He was placed under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings. Those disciplinary proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before a Division Bench of this Court in O.P.No.26465/2001. The Division Bench, by Ext.P1 judgment dated 26.5.2003, quashed the disciplinary proceedings on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and the petitioner was allowed to continue as Melsanthi. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition seeking arrears of salary for the period from April 2000 to July, 2003. 2. I have heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Devaswom Board also. 3. I am of opinion that the petitioner is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. Admittedly, the petitioner is seeking arrears of salary for the period from April, 2000 to July, 2003. The petitioner obtained Ext.P1 judgment on 26.5.2003. If payment of arrears of salary is a consequence of Ext.P1 judgment, the petitioner should have either obtained directions in respect of the same in that writ petition itself or should at least have taken it up either before the Devaswom Board or the appropriate court within a reasonable time. The petitioner has w.p.c.33295/10 2 been sleeping over his rights for more than seven years. The petitioner has not also given any reasonable explanation for the delay and laches of seven years. In the above circumstances, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition at this late stage in exercise of my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on account of unexplained delay and laches. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge