IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MRS.MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1933 WA.No. 186 of 2011() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.30710/1999 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION ------------------------------------------------- D.JAYAKUMAR, S/O.K.P.DAMODARAN, TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, FISHERIES STATION, VYPEEN, ERNAKULAM, RESIDING AT ASWATHI BHAVAN, VENGINISSERI, PARALAM P.O., THRISSUR-680575. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION --------------------------------------------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA (REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FISHERIES AND PORTS DEPARTMENT), THE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FISHERIES (ZONAL) NEAR AYURVEDA COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE STATE OF KERALA( REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO FINANCE DEPARTMENT), THE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY G.P. SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MANJULA CHELLUR, Ag. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.186 of 2011 & C.M. Appln. No.119 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of November, 2011. JUDGMENT Manjula Chellur, Ag. C.J. The appellant herein filed O.P. No.30710/1999 which came to be disposed of on 7.12.2005. However, he filed the appeal only in the year 2011 with a delay of 1808 days. According to him, he was under the impression that the petition would be posted for hearing in the usual course and would come up for hearing at some point of time. As a matter of fact, he was under the impression that his application may not reach for hearing for atleast 10 years. This is one of the reasons for delay in not enquiring with his Advocate to know what was happening to his writ petition. According to him, on account of denial of huge amount of money as salary, he entered into financial difficulties, therefore, he was trying to secure better employment between 2005 to 2006. He could rejoin duty only in April 2006 as he was unable to find alternate employment. He further contends when he paid a visit to his W.A. 186/2011 2 counsel's office in the month of December 2010, he realised that the writ petition had come up for hearing and was disposed of on 7.12.2005. The certified copy could be delivered to him only on 6.1.2011 and thereafter he filed the present appeal and by that time there was a delay of 1808 days. Therefore, he seeks condonation of delay explaining the delay as stated above. 2. We heard the oral objections of the Government Advocate regarding the delay application. Admittedly the appellant is a M.Sc. Graduate in Fisheries. He is a literate person. When he joined the course between 1995 and 1996, he knew what benefits he was entitled to, rather the restrictions imposed by the Government while approving his representation permitting him to study M.Sc. course in Fisheries. As per the notification of the Government we find that whenever the Government sponsors their employees for higher studies, after completing the studies they must work for a period of atleast five years in the same department. In other words, after completing their further studies, they are not entitled to leave the department at all. That apart, W.A. 186/2011 3 knowing fully well that he filed writ petition in 1999 and in the light of his grievance that he was in serious financial difficulties, one would expect him to be alert and cautious to know what was happening to his Writ Petition. 3. The appellant seems to be under many impressions and wrong notions. He was under the impression that his Writ Petition would not reach for about 10 years, therefore, he decided to approach his Advocate only after 10 years. He was also under the impression that he would be entitled to all his pay and salary when he proceeded on leave during the period he was pursuing his Master's course. If the appellant was in dire requirement of finance, he would have definitely evinced interest in prosecuting his matter. The reasons given by the appellant for delay are not at all convincing. Apart from that, when we go through Ext.P22 order dated 5.11.1999 we note that on receiving application or representation of the appellant dated 7.7.1996 seeking relaxation of economy order, the Government was compassionate towards him and granted leave by sponsoring him for further studies W.A. 186/2011 4 subject to specific condition that no expenditure will be incurred by the Government. Apparently he joined M.Sc. during the academic year 1995-96. If the appellant had rightly understood what exactly were the restrictions imposed, he would not have waited till 1999 asking for payment of pay and allowances. During the period prosecuting his higher studies he would have demanded the same. He waited till the completion of the course and approached the department seeking payment of salary and allowances only in the year 1999 and he was very well aware that he should approach the court for a direction to the department when his application was not considered or replied. With this much of knowledge the appellant cannot be expected to wait for 10 years to approach his Advocate to know that was happening to his case. He was not alert and cautious to know what was happening by not evincing any interest to prosecute his appeal but also he was aware what exactly was the condition imposed at the time of granting the leave by the concerned authorities. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the appellant is not able to substantiate with genuine W.A. 186/2011 5 reason the delay of 1808 days. Hence application for delay is dismissed. Consequently appeal is also dismissed. Sd/- MANJULA CHELLUR Acting Chief Justice Sd/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge True copy P.S. to Judge pms