The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition regarding fixation of pension liability due to delay and laches. The High Court, in this appeal, upheld the dismissal, finding no merit in the appeal and noting that the appellant's right to pursue further representations remains unaffected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR &
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2009 / 5TH SRAVANA 1931
WA.No. 2721 of 2007
-------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.27141/2007 Dated 01/10/2007 ....................
APPELLANT(S):
S.SIKHAMANI, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O. SUKUMARAN, RESIDING AT SABALA, KUNNUVARAM, ATTINGAL P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADV. SRI.T.RAJASEKHARAN NAIR
RESPONDENT(S):
BY GOVT. PLEADER SMT. R. BINDU.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
W.A. No.2721 of 2007
Dated this, the 27th day of July, 2009
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The appellant/petitioner retired from service on 30.6.2004. The proceedings initiated against him for fixation of liability culminated in Ext.P7 proceedings dated 4.4.2005. Based on that, Ext.P9 liability certificate has been issued to him on 12.7.2005. The appellant did not demur against those proceedings. Even on his own showing, he received Ext.P7 in December 2005. The first representation stated to have been filed by him against the fixation of liability is Ext.P12, dated 10.8.2007. The writ petition was filed in September, 2007 challenging inter alia Exts.P7 and P9 orders and also the fixation of liability under them to the tune of Rs.35,683/-. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches.
W.A.No.2721 of 2007
- 2 -
that, there is considerable delay from the part of the appellant in challenging the impugned proceedings. A person aggrieved by an order should challenge it before the appropriate forum within a reasonable time limit. Going by the well settled principles governing invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge. We find no reason to interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. But, the rights, if any, of the appellant to pursue Ext.P12, will not be affected by this judgment.
Sd/K. Balakrishnan Nair, Judge.
Sd/C.T. Ravikumar, Judge.
DK.
(True copy)
P.S. TO JUDGE.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ appeal is maintainable in view of the delay and laches on the part of the appellant?
S. SIKHAMANI
THE STATE OF KERALA
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
