IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 WA.No. 1129 of 2011() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.1705/2011 .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER ------------------------ V.GOPINATHAN, ASSISTANT GRADE II(D)(RETIRED) FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, DISTRICT OFFICE, PALAKKAD, NOW RESIDING AT KARTIKA, F.C.I.COLONY, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PUDUPPARIYARAM, OLAVAKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REPRESENTING BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, 16/20 BARAKAMBA LANE, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ZONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (SOUTH), FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, ZONAL OFFICE, CHENNAI. 4. THE SENIOR REGIONAL MANAGER, FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, SC THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/08/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.1129 of 2011 .................................................................... Dated this the 4th day of August, 2011. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Writ Appeal is filed against judgment of the learned Single Judge declining to issue writ of mandamus to direct FCI to consider higher pay to the appellant while in service. Appellant retired on 31.5.2009 as Assistant Grade III which is a promotion he got from Class IV in which cadre he joined the FCI. The first round of litigation ended up with Ext.P8 judgment issued by the learned Single Judge of this court on 24.7.2007. Pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, appellant along with another person filed a representation wherein appellant's claim was that one Mr.U.Krishnankutty and Mr.K.P.Sethumadhavan who were Assistant Grade II like the appellant were given higher pay, though they were juniors to him. FCI considered the representation filed pursuant to Ext.P8 judgment and issued Ext.P10 order on 23.3.2009. On going through the said order, what we find is that the appellant's claim was out of place because the W.A. 1129/2011 2 two persons named above were irregularly paid higher salary without eligibility and the same was later withdrawn, even though higher amount drawn by them is not stated to be recovered by KFC. While representing the matter before the Executive Director who issued Ext.P10, the appellant has raised another contention that one Sri.V.Parameswaran was given step-up in pay on 29.12.1993 which should have been granted to the appellant. When this contention was raised which was not part of the representation, the Executive Director of FCI in Ext.P10 observed that the new issue raised for pay at par with Sri.V.Parameswaran with effect from 29.12.1993 will be considered, if the appellant makes a representation in that regard. Even though Ext.P10 was issued on 23.3.2009, the appellant filed representation after one year and eight months in November 2010. The said representation was not considered by the FCI and consequently W.P. (C) was filed which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay alone. 2. Counsel for the appellant submitted that delay should not defeat appellant's claim particularly when the FCI gave an opportunity W.A. 1129/2011 3 to agitate issues one after another after retirement which is clear from Ext.P10 itself. The representation filed pursuant to Ext.P10 which is a different issue raised than the one earlier contested before this court which led to Ext.P10 decision relates to appellant's claim for pay at par with another person from December 1993 onwards. The period with reference to which higher pay is claimed by the appellant is 16 years prior to his retirement which itself took place two and a half years back. We feel delay is not only in the representation, but with reference to the grievance itself which is 18 years old as of now. We do not find any justification to permit re-agitation of an issue 18 years after the grievance. Consequently Writ Appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge P.S.GOPINATHAN Judge pms