IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI TUESDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2009 / 14TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 28015 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- SIVARAMAN.K.M., S/O.K.M.MANIKKAM, AGED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT KODAKKADAN HOUSE, VAVAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT- PANCHAYAT DEPARTMENT. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYAT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.NANDAKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V. GIRI, J. `````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 28015 of 2009 V `````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 6th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner, while working as the Secretary of the Nagalassery Grama Panchayat, was placed under suspension. Later, suspension was revoked and he was reinstated in service. The Government, by Ext.P2, passed orders with regard to the mode of treatment of the period when the petitioner was placed under suspension. The period from 26-08-1994 to 04-12-1995, when the petitioner was placed under suspension, was directed to be treated as duty but, salary and wages were restricted to the subsistence allowance already drawn. But, the period from 05-12- 1995 to 15-5-1996, when the petitioner was kept out of service without any justification, was directed to be treated as duty and salary and full allowances were to be paid. Ext.P2 dated 04-01- 2005 has been now challenged by the petitioner after almost five years. 2. I am not inclined to entertain the writ petition for more than one reason. An order in the nature of Ext.P2 is one which WPC.28015/09 : 2 : could have been legitimately passed by the Government. The period of suspension was directed to be treated as duty. The question as to whether the employee is entitled to full salary and allowances for the said period is a matter that can be legitimately decided by the Government and it has been so decided. Ext.P1 shows that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was terminated with a strict warning. There is nothing illegal about Ext.P2. 3. Secondly, the challenge against Ext.P2 is highly belated. The order is definitely not void. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed. (V.GIRI, JUDGE) aks