IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1931 WP(C).No. 30412 of 2009(V) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- P.RAMACHANDRA KURUP, S/O.KUNHAMBU, RETIRED TALUK PANCHAYATH OFFICER, "SRUTHI", P.O.PUTHUR, VIA.PANOOR, THALASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATHS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANU SIVARAMAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: kkms/ ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.30412 of 2009 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 10th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner retired from service on 30/06/1996. 2. He joined the service pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 24/11/1961, by which he was appointed as Second Grade Executive Officer. It is stated that in 1966, Special Rules were amended and those unsuitable to continue as Second Grade Executive Officers, were to be absorbed in the Third Grade. Based on the amended Special Rules, petitioner and several others were absorbed in the Third Grade. 3. Some of those, who were absorbed in the Third Grade, complained against their so called reversion, and their grievance was redressed, as is seen from Ext.P2 dated 28/06/1994, and later such persons were promoted to higher cadres. Ext.P4 shows that promotions have been given to the cadre of Joint Director of Panchayats. The beneficiaries of Ext.P4 were seniors to the petitioner. WP(C) No.30412/2009 -2- 4. The grievance of the petitioner that he too had filed objection against his absorption to the Third Grade, by Exts.P5 & P6, which are dated 25/10/1995 and 10/01/1996 respectively. It is stated that there has not been any action on Exts.P5 & P6, and therefore, he submitted Ext.P7 dated 18/03/2009 before the 1st respondent complaining that he is also entitled to have his grievance redressed like those covered by Ext.P2 dated 28/06/1994, and on that basis, his pay and terminal benefits are to be revised. 5. Having regard to the long lapse of time since the alleged filing of Exts.P5 & P6, the learned Government Pleader was directed to obtain instructions as to whether these representations are still pending. On instructions, she submits that the authorities could not trace the representations in the Office of the 1st respondent. 6. Admittedly, the absorption into the Third Grade was soon after the Special Rules were amended in 1966. Some affected persons had complained and their grievance was redressed. According to the petitioner, he too filed Exts.P5 & P6 in 1995 & 1996. Since then, he did not move any further except filing Ext.P7 WP(C) No.30412/2009 -3- allegedly on 18/03/2009, which itself was 13 years after his retirement. Therefore, now what the petitioner seeks is rectification of an action that took place in the 1960s and that too on the basis of two untraceable representations. Having regard to the above, in my view, the petitioner is guilty of delay and latches and at any rate, the claim now raised to redress the grievance of the petitioner, is a stale one to be redressed in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition fails, and is accordingly dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg