IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND AUGUST 2008 / 31ST SRAVANA 1930 WP(C).No. 25414 of 2008(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ P.R. SREEDHARAN, AGED 64, (RETIRED POLICE CONSTABLE), S/O. RAMAKRISHNA PANICKER, PLANKALA PUTHEN VEEDU, MEKKOLA, DHANUVACHAPURAM.P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND EXPENDITURE SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (RURAL), OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURAVANKONAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GP. SMT.M.R.SREELATHA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N.RAVINDRAN, J ------------------- W.P.(C).25414/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT The petitioner is a pensioner who retired from service on 31.10.1988. In this writ petition, the petitioner claims the benefit of G.O.(MS).5/67/Public (SS) Department dated 12.1.1967. According to the petitioner, as per the said Government Order, Government employees who did not participate in strike are entitled to one advance increment. The petitioner submits that though the benefit of advance increment in terms of the said Government Order was given to other employees, when he moved the Government for the benefit of the Government Order dated 12.1.1967, it was declined by Exts.P5 and P6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner's request was rejected on the short ground that a copy of the Government Order dated 12.1.1967 is not available in the files. 2. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar by Sri.R.T.Pradeep, the learned counsel for the petitioner. W.P.(C).25414/2008 2 In my considered opinion, the claim made by the petitioner who retired from service as early as on 31.10.1988 is highly belated. The petitioner did not, at any point of time while he was in service, make any claim based on the Government Order dated 12.1.1967. The question whether he had participated in the strike held in January, 1967 or not cannot now be determined because there would be no material available to prove that the petitioner did or did not participate in the strike. The petitioner who slept over his rights if any, for the past nearly 31 years cannot seek or be granted any benefit flowing from the Government Order dated 12.1.1967. The writ petition is, in my opinion, highly belated and an abuse of the process of the Court. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed in limine. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge mrcs