IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JULY 2007 / 29TH ASHADHA 1929 WP(C).No. 22304 of 2007(E) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ G.SASI, PEON(RTD), OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KOONTHALAMVILA VEEDU, PALAPOOR, VELLAYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.SAJAN SRI.M.MOHAMED NAVAZ SRI.L.ALOYSIUS THOMAS RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS(B)DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, IRRIGATION AND ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. BIJOY CHANDRAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/07/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO.22304 OF 2007-E ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner is a retired Government Servant, retired from service on 31.12.2004. He was appointed in service on 27.5.1988 under the dying-in-harness scheme. The petitioner's father, who was in service, died in 1962. The Government introduced a scheme for providing employment assistance to the dependents of Government employees who died in harness, in 1970. The petitioner submits, he submitted the application on 16.6.1971, claiming appointment. But, appointment was granted only on 27.5.1988. So, he prays, the period from 1971 to 1988 should also be reckoned as part of his service, for granting the terminal benefits. The petitioner submits, he filed several representations claiming this relief. Finally, his representation was rejected by the Government by Ext.P10 order dated 27.03.2007. In the said order the Government have stated that the application for appointment along with the necessary records was submitted by the petitioner only on 25.11.1987. The same with the recommendation of the Head of the Department reached the Government only on 7.1.1988. WP(C) No. 22304/2007 : 2 : According to the Government, if there is delay, the petitioner alone is responsible. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 and seeks consequential reliefs. 2. The claim of the petitioner is not supported by any statutory provision. If there was delay in appointing him, he should have moved the appropriate forum then itself and got reliefs. Based on the delay which happened between 1971 and 1988, even if the said delay is unjustified, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek relief in 2007. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. 20th July, 2007. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/