IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN THURSDAY, THE 5TH JUNE 2008 / 15TH JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No. 771 of 2008() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.19216/2005 Dated 28/06/2005 .................... APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS IN W.P.(C) --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RAILWAYS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVACIS RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS IN WPC: ------------------------- 1. RAJAN VELLILAT, PC 6760, RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. 2. UNNIKRISHNAN M., PC 4681, RAILWAY POLICE STATION, KOZHIKODE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. -------------------------------------- W.A. No. 771 of 2008 and C.M.Appl.No.371 of 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of June, 2008 Judgment Koshy,J. The question to be considered in this case is whether training period after appointment can be calculated for the purpose of counting the pensionary service. A Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2744 of 1998 found that training period shall be counted. The matter was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the S.L.P. and numbered it as an appeal and appeal was dismissed with the following observations: "The High Court has consistently taken the view that the period of training undergone by the respondent should be treated as period spent on duty for the purpose of scale of pay, increments and other consequential benefits. This view was expressed by the High Court in the case of Lakshmanan v. State of Kerala - 1995 (1) KLT 115 and that decision in turn follows other decisions in Louis v. Kerala Public Service Commission - 1965 KLT 1282 and Haridasan v. State of Kerala - 1987 (2) KLT 486. As this has been the consistent view and the orders in those cases not having been challenged before this court, we do not think that it is a fit case for our interference under article 136 of the Constitution. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed." W.A.No.771/2008 2 So, the above decision was upheld following the Division Bench decision in the writ appeals. More than 60 constables were given the benefit. According to the Government Pleader in the decision reported in State of Kerala v. Thirumeni (2007 (4) KLT 938), a different view was taken, but, that petition was dismissed mainly because of long delay in approaching the Government after retirement. These writ petitions were admitted and decided on merits. Rules provides for in-service training after appointment. We also note that there is long delay of 870 days in filing the appeal and mere administrative delay without giving data is not a satisfactory explanation for condoning the long delay. We see no ground to condone the delay. Hence the petition to condone the delay in filing the appeal is dismissed. The learned Judge only followed the decision in the writ petition which was affirmed by the Supreme Court. We are bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and, therefore, we see no ground to interfere in the order of the learned single Judge. Writ appeal is also dismissed. J.B.Koshy Judge P.N.Ravindran Judge vaa W.A.No.771/2008 3 J.B. KOSHY AND P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ. ------------------------------------- W.A. No. 771 of 2008 and C.M.Appl.No.371 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Judgment Dated:5th June, 2008