IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 36071 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------ K.VASANTHAKUMAR, S/O.KUNJU PILLAI, AGED 51 YEARS, THODIYIL PADINJATTETHIL, ULIYAKOVIL, KADAPPAKKADA P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SMT.K.RAJANI RESPONDENT(S): -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. 2. THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1-2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 36071 OF 2008 (T) ==================== Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner states that he worked as ELR Khalasi in Southern Railways during 1975. It is stated that he was involved in a criminal case and was punished. Subsequently also, the petitioner worked in the Railways. During the emergency period, his services were terminated. It is stated that long thereafter, sometime in 2006, the Chief Minister of the State made a statement offering to rehabilitate the emergency victims. Based on the statement so made, the petitioner made Ext.P4 requesting the 2nd respondent, Secretary to Ministry of Railways, to reinstate him. In this writ petition, he complains that there has not been any action on Ext.P4, which is stated to have been served on the respondents. 2. Irrespective of whether Ext.P4 has been served, fact remains that the petitioner's services were terminated by the Railways and that has become final. A statement, even if made by the Chief Minister of the State, could not have given any enforceable right for the petitioner against the railways and at any rate, the petitioner could not have claimed reinstatement based on such a statement made by the Chief Minister of the State. Even if the said statement creates any right in favour of the WPC 36071/08 :2 : petitioner, the same can at best be enforceable against the maker of the statement and not a third party. 3. Therefore, in this writ petition, I am not persuaded to issue any direction to the 2nd respondent based on the statement said to have been made by the Chief Minister of the State. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp