IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.CHELAMESWAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2011 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1933 WA.No. 1241 of 2007() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.18015/1999 Dated 05/03/2007 .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ A.S.SUBHAGAN, U.D.CLERK, MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.K.P.KYLASANATHA PILLAY SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRIK.JITHIN SMT.SREEDEVI KYLASANATH RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, LOCAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, ALAPPUZHA. 4. GANAPRAKASAN, U.D.CLERK, CORPORATION OF KOZHIKODE, KOZHIKODE. 5. P.N.VILASINI, U.D.CLERK, CORPORATION OF COCHIN, MAIN OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN FOR R4 SRI.M.K.CHANDRA MOHANDAS FOR R3 SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.BENNY GERVASIS FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.CHELAMESWAR, C.J. & ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.A. No. 1241 of 2007 ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 30th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Antony Dominic, J. The unsuccessful petitioner in O.P.No.18015/1999 is the appellant herein. 2. The claim of the appellant is that, he had passed the Departmental Test in November, 1990 and that many of his juniors were promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk, overlooking his due claims. It is stated that in many such cases, mistakes have been rectified by giving retrospective promotion with effect from 1991. Ext.P7, P7 (a) and P7(b) orders issued on 16.11.1995, 20.09.1996 and 16.07.1995 respectively are relied on by the appellant in support of the contention. It is stated that however his representation was considered and was given promotion only with effect from 11.12.1996 and not with effect from W.A. No.1241/2007 : 2 : 25.03.1991, as given to the beneficiaries of Exts.P7(a) and P7(b). It is complaining of the above that the original petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge disposed of the original petition, directing the second respondent to grant the petitioner monetary benefits of his retrospective promotion with effect from 11.12.1996 and declined the prayer for retrospectivity with effect from 25.03.1991. Contending that he ought to be given such benefit from 25.03.1991, this writ appeal is filed. 4. A reading of the judgment itself shows that the reason which persuaded the learned Single Judge to decline the prayer for promotion with effect from 25.03.1991 is that the appellant claimed the said benefit before the authorities only by his Ext.P2 representation dated 02.01.1997 and by filing the original petition before this Court in 1999. On this ground, the learned Single Judge found that the claim of the appellant is unsustainable for W.A. No.1241/2007 : 3 : delay and laches. 5. On facts, we fully agree with the learned Single Judge. As already seen, the beneficiaries of Ext.P7 claimed the benefit by making appropriate representations in 1995 itself, unlike the appellant, who approached the authorities only in 1997. Therefore, the learned Judge was perfectly justified that the appellant was guilty of delay and laches. We see no reason to interfere with the matter. Writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (J.CHELAMESWAR, CHIEF JUSTICE) Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/30.05 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge