IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH OCTOBER 2011 / 3RD KARTHIKA 1933 WP(C).No. 28406 of 2011(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- VARIJAKSHAN NAIR, RETIRED TRACER, WATER AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT, SREE KALAYANI MANDIRAM, CHENNARA POST, VIA MANGALAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.BHASKARAN SRI.V.K.NANKAKUMARAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA WATER AUTHORITY, KALABHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. 3. THE THASILDAR, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT - 688 012. R2 BY ADV.SMT. T.AMBIKA DEVI, SC, KWA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs W.P.(C). NO. 28406/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 23/09/2003. P2: COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED 28/10/2004 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P3: COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER IN RESPECT OF EXHIBIT-P2 P4: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 07/03/2006. P5: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A NO. 791 OF 2000 DATED 18/09/2003. P6: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/10/2011 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. svs K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.28406 of 2011-A. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th October, 2011. J U D G M E N T The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order by which his request for revision of his pension by taking into account the provisional service that he had put in before he was absorbed into the Kerala Water Authority has been rejected. According to the petitioner, he had worked as a provisional employee in the Revenue Department before the reorganization of the State. Though the request of the petitioner has been considered by Ext.P4, it has been rejected. Petitioner has therefore filed this writ petition seeking appropriate orders for taking into account his provisional service also and for revising his pension accordingly. 2. The Standing Counsel for the Kerala Water Authority opposes this petition pointing out that the petitioner is a person who has not worked as a provisional WP(C).No.28406/2011-A. 2 employee in any predecessor organization of the Water Authority, he was a provisional employee in the Revenue Department. Further, the order Ext.P4 that the petitioner seeks to challenge is dated 7.3.2006 and the present challenge more than five years after passing the order is vitiated by laches and unconscionable delay. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that originally, the organization of Kerala Water Authority was part of the Revenue Department of the State. He also states that the delay was because he had been approaching the respondents seeking revision of his pensionary benefits on the basis of his claim. 4. Ext.P4 that is sought to be challenged, as rightly pointed out by the counsel for the Water Authority is of the year 2006. Absolutely no reasons have been stated by the petitioner to explain the delay in filing this writ petition. Having slept over his rights for more than five years, there is no justification for entertaining the challenge against Ext.P4, at this length of time. WP(C).No.28406/2011-A. 3 5. The provisional service put in by the petitioner is admittedly in the Revenue Department. Absolutely no material has been placed before me to justify a conclusion that the organization of the Water Authority also part of the Revenue Department, previously. A similar question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Ext.P5 judgment in WA.No.791 of 2000. The Court made the following observations in paragraph 3 of the said judgment. Speaking for the Bench, Abdul Gafoor J, has held as follows: “When admittedly, the admitted provisional service to his credit is not in Kerala Water Authority, cancellation of Ext.P7 by Ext.P6 is legal, or not, the Kerala Water Authority is not liable to pay pension for the service rendered by him elsewhere. When viewed so, even if Ext.P7 was in existence at the time of his retirement, the provisional service put in by him anywhere other than in Kerala Water Authority could not have been reckoned for pension payable by the Kerala Water Authority. At the best, on the strength of Ext.P7, he can earn pension only taking into account the provisional service, if any, put in by him in the Kerala Water Authority or its predecessor interest. Admittedly, he does not have any such service. Therefore, the provisional service put in by him in other department cannot count for pension payable by the Kerala Water Authority.” WP(C).No.28406/2011-A. 4 6. In view of the above binding precedent, the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge) Kvs/-