IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2011 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 2151 of 2011(T) ------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- S.KAMALAMMA, T.C.9/1215, MANGALAM LANE, SASTHAMANGALAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. RETIRED SUB TREASURY OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.K.T.SHYAMKUMAR SRI.HARISH R. MENON RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, FINANCE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.695001 2. THE DIRECTOR OF TREASURIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001 3. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A&E), INDIAN AUDITS AND ACCOUNTS DEPARTMENT, KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695001 GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.SMITHA SUKUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J --------------------------------------- WP(C) No.2151of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT The petitioner retired from service in the year 1999. Prior to his retirement, he was imposed with a punishment of barring of one increment. According to the petitioner, after the period of punishment was over, the petitioner was eligible for one increment before retirement, which has not been granted to him. His retirement benefits were also consequently reduced. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs; “(i) call for the records leading to the issuance of Exhibits P6 and P7 orders issued by the 1st Respondent and quash the same by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction. (ii) declare that the Petitioner is entitled to have his pensionary benefits calculated reckoning the increment which fell due on 1.11.1998 as part of her terminal average emoluments. (iii) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Exhibit P3 GO to the extent it curtails its retrospective operation in the light of Exhibit P4 judgment of this Honourable Court. (iv) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction WP(C) No.2151of 2011 -: 2 :- commanding the 3rd Respondent to notionally restore the increment which fell due on 1.11.1998 for the purpose of calculating the pensionary benefits of the petitioner.” 2. This writ petition came-up first on 21.1.2011. I was of opinion that the petitioner having retired in 1999, and Exts.P6 and P7 orders which the petitioner challenges having been passed as early as on 27.7.2009 and 5.2.2010, the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. Therefore, I passed the following order on 16.2.2011:- “The petitioner seeks reckoning of one more increment, which according to the petitioner, fell due to the petitioner after the punishment of barring of the increment was over, but before the retirement. But the petitioner retired on 1999 and Exts. P6 and P7 orders, which the petitioner challenges, are dated 27.07.2009 and 05.02.2010 respectively. When it was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches at every stage of the proceedings, the counsel seeks time.” 3. The petitioner thereafter filed an additional affidavit dated 16.3.2011. I am of opinion that the averments in that affidavit is also not sufficient to explain the long delay. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE. smvd