IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI MONDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2009 / 13TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 23982 of 2009(P) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------- K.G.VIJAYAN, AGED 32, S/O.T.K.GOPI, L.D.CLERK, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT SRI.K.N.ABHILASH SMT.R.LEELA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH, DIRECTORATE, ERNAKULAM. 3. THE PRESIDENT, UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, UDAYAMPEROOR P.O., ERNAKULAM. 4. UDAYAMPEROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. SMITHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI,J. ------------------------- W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 -------------------------- Dated this the 5th October,2009 J U D G M E N T While serving as Lower Division Clerk in the Udayamperoor Grama Panchayat, petitioner was placed under suspension. An enquiry was conducted by a three Member Committee and according to the petitioner, as evidenced by Ext.P2, the Committee recommended that suspension should be revoked and he should be reinstated in service. By Ext.P3 his suspension was revoked and reinstated . But the period of his suspension was directed to be treated as eligible leave. Ext.P3 is dated 4.6.2004. Petitioner has challenged Ext.P3 by this writ petition instituted on 20.8.2009 contending that there was undue delay on the part of the Panchayat Committee in taking action on the basis of the report of the Special Committee and reinstating the petitioner in service after revoking his suspension. 2. The claim made by the petitioner is misconceived and I find no reason whatsoever which would justify the petitioner approaching this Court in the year W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 2 2009 challenging the proceedings of the year 2004. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Exts.P4 and P5 which would show that petitioner is hospitalised in the year 2009 on account of an accident which took place on 22.5.2009. Obviously, the disability incurred by the petitioner in the year 2009 would not be a sufficient cause to justify the long delay of 5 years in challenging Ext.P3. Writ petition is therefore dismissed. (V.GIRI,JUDGE) ma W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 3 W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 4 W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 5 W.P ( C) No.23982 of 2009 6