IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 28967 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER : ----------------- K.B.GOPINATHAN NAIR, S/O.RAMAN NAIR, PORAKKATTU HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA PO, HELPER, CHOTTANIKKARA DEVASWOM BOARD, PIN-682 312, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.K.V.JAYADEEP MENON SRI.T.P.RAMESH (THENGUMPILLIL) SMT.P.KRISHNAPRIYA RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE KOCHI DEVASWAM BOARD, THRISSUR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 2. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CHOTTANIKKARA DEVASWOM BOARD, CHOTTANIKKARA, PIN-682 312. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.RAGHURAJ,SC,COCHIN DEVASWOM BOARD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn S. SIRI JAGAN, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C)No.28967 of 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner joined as an employee of Cochin Devaswam Board with effect from 01.09.1985. According to the petitioner, the petitioner took leave on medical grounds and when he wanted to rejoin duty on 01.09.1995 he was not allowed to rejoin duty. Petitioner claims to have filed representations and even approached the Adalath which by Ext.P10 informed the petitioner that in respect of the subject matter they cannot take a decision and therefore the files have been retransmitted to the 1st respondent who would take a decision within 10 days. Petitioner submits that, despite the same, no decision is taken. The petitioner, therefore seeks the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner on his employment with effect from 01-09-1995 with all service benefits; (ii) Direct the 1st respondent to pay the salary arrears to the petitioner.” W.P.(C)No.28967 of 2010 -2- Admittedly the petitioner lost his job as early as on 01.09.1995. Whether the action of the respondents is justifiable or not, petitioner did not take any positive steps to challenge the same appropriately. Petitioner claims to have filed representations. It is settled law that filing of repeated representations cannot explain delay and laches. In this case, the delay and laches is of 15 years. I do not think that, I can at this distance of time consider the validity of the action of the respondents in allegedly denying employment to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. S. SIRI JAGAN JUDGE shg/