IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2009 / 23RD ASHADHA 1931 WA.No. 1444 of 2009() --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.7531/2009 Dated 26/03/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/ PETITIONERS ------------------------- 1. K.CHANDRAVATHY, NADUVATTATHIL HOUSE, THALORE PO, THIRUSSUR-680 306. 2. ANILKUMAR K,. NADUVATTATHIL HOUSE, THALORE PO, THRISSUR - 680 306. 3. ANJALI SETHUMADHAVAN, NADUVATTATHIL HOUSE, THALORE PO, THRISSUR 680 306, MINOR, REP.BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN, K.CHANDRAVATHY, NADUVATTATHIL HOUSE, THALORE PO,THRISSUR - 680 306. BY ADV. SRI.S.P.ARAVINDAKSHAN PILLAY SMT.N.SANTHA SRI.K.A.BALAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MAIN CAMPUS, VELLANIKKARA, THRISSUR - 680 656 REP.BY ITS REGISTRAR. 2. THE PROFESSOR AND HEAD, UNIVERSITY LIVESTOCK FARM AND FODDER RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT SCHEME, KERALA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR, PIN 680 651. SRI.RENJITH THAMPAN, SC, KAU. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ---------------------------------------- W.A. No.1444 OF 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioners are the legal heirs of Late. N.Sethumadhavan. He was a permanent labourer attached to Live Stock Farm of the Kerala Agricultural University at Mannuthy. By Ext.P10 order Mr.M.Sethumadhavan was terminated from service on 15.1.1993. After five years, he passed away on 29.11.1998. By Ext.P5 representation dated 14.5.2008, the 2nd appellant moved the University claiming appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. According to the appellants, Mr.M.Sethumadhavan was terminated from service by an incompetent officer. Therefore, the order is void and it never had any effect. If that be so, he died while in service. Therefore, one of his dependent legal heirs is liable to be given employment. Since Ext.P5 representation was rejected by Ext.P8, the Writ Petition was filed seeking appropriate reliefs. W.A.No.1444/2009 2 2. The learned Single Judge found that the claim of the appellants/writ petitioners was highly stale and unsustainable. Since the terminated employee suffered that order and did not demur for five years, his legal heirs cannot challenge the same, after ten years of his death, it was held. 3. We find nothing wrong with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. It is true, if a person feels that an order of an authority against him is void, he can choose to wait and challenge it when that order is pressed into service against him. But, that principle can have no application to an order of termination from service. Further, that principle cannot invoked by his legal heirs, long after the death of the person, who suffers the adverse order. So, the contention of the appellants is devoid of any merit and accordingly the Writ Appeal is dismissed. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) ps