IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH MAY 2011 / 6TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 1705 of 2011(K) ------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- V.GOPINATHAN, ASSISTANT GRADE II (D) (RETIRED) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT KARTHIKA, F.C.I.COLONY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 16/20 BARAKAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. PINCODE 110 001 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. PINCODE600 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI.PINCODE600 001 4. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PINCODE 695 001 FOR R1 TO R4 ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC, FCI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/05/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.1705 of 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 27th day of May, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner seeks a direction to the third respondent to consider and pass orders on Ext.P11 representation dated 08.11.2010 filed by the petitioner against Ext.P10 order with respect to his complaint that his junior is drawing higher salary than the petitioner. I am of the opinion that petitioner is liable to be non-suited on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. Against Ext.10 order dated 23.03.2009, petitioner has filed Ext.P11 representation only on 08.11.2010. By order dated 18.01.2011, I directed the petitioner to explain the delay. Petitioner has filed an affidavit dated 31.01.2011, wherein he has sought to explain the delay by stating that after his retirement on 31.05.2009 he has decided to undergo Ayurvedic treatment for back pain. 2. After considering the affidavit when this court expressed an opinion that the averments in the affidavit cannot be cannot be accepted as satisfactory explanation for the delay, the petitioner sought time to produce medical certificate to prove his contentions. Thereafter W.P.(C)No.1705 of 2011 2 he has filed a medical certificate dated 09.02.2011 along with a memo, which would certify that from July 2009 to July 2010, the petitioner was advised not to undergo journeys as his problem was acute during that period. 3. I have considered contentions of the petitioner. I do not think that, even assuming that what the petitioner says is correct, for sending a representation by post, his physical condition was a bar. Even otherwise he has not explained the delay between 23.03.2009 and July 2009 and July 2010 and 08.11.2010. In the above circumstances, I am not satisfied that the petitioner has explained the delay satisfactorily. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay and laches. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE kkj