KRISHNAN N. Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This original petition is directed against the order dated 9.6.2015 in O.A.No. 1010/2015 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner herein was the applicant and the respondents herein were the respondents, therein. The Original Petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) The petitioner is a retiree from the Revenue Department. He retired on 31.10.2001 from the post of Tahsildar. He entered into the service of the department as Village Assistant in Kannur district on 14.8.1967 and was later promoted as Village Officer on 21197 Later, he was appointed by transfer as Revenue Inspector/Special Revenue Inspector. Thereafter he was again promoted as Deputy Tahsildar. As stated earlier, he retired from service while working as Tahsildar. The contention of the petitioner is that during the period 20.11970 to 9.9.1984 those Village Officers who possessed the test qualification of DOM and Account Test (Lower), were eligible for transfer appointment as Revenue Inspector/Special Revenue Inspector against 35% quota reserved for them. According to him, he had such qualifications at the relevant point of time and therefore, he was to be given transfer appointment as Revenue Inspector on 15.4.1978. It is his further contention that he became eligible for promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar in the year 1984. Though vacancies occurred in cadre of Deputy Tahsildar on 10.1.1984 he was given promotion to the said post only as per the proceedings dated 21.11993 of the Board of Revenue. His specific case is that owing to the delay occurred in the matter of promotion to the post of Deputy Tahsildar, his promotion to the post of Tahsildar got delayed. In such circumstances, the petitioner along with five others moved this court by filing O.P. No. 17498/1995. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition he was promoted as Tahsildar, on 7.11999. The said writ petition was later disposed of as per Ext.P1 judgment dated 10.1.2003 and even prior to its pronouncement he retired from service. Taking note of the said aspect, this court disposed of the said writ petition as per Ext.P1, virtually granting liberty to the petitioners therein, including the petitioner herein, to file representations before the Commissioner of Land Revenue and the said authority was in turn, directed to consider and pass appropriate orders thereon, within the time stipulated therein. It is further ordered that in case their claim is sustained, consequential benefits ensuing from the order shall also be given. Availing the liberty granted by this court under Ext.P1, the petitioner submitted a representation on 1.2003. The said representation was rejected by the Government on 24.5.2003. In the Original Application filed before the Tribunal it was specifically stated that in the meanwhile one of his juniors namely R. Sasidharan Pillai filed writ petition No. 31721/2008 and pursuant to the disposal of the said case Government had passed an order in favour of the said R. Sasidharan Pillai. It is also stated therein that Sri. Sasidharan Pillai was granted notional promotion. Dissatisfied with the order granting only notional promotion and denial of arrears of salary and other consequential benefits the said Sasidharan Pillai again approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 36044/2010 challenging the order passed by the first respondent dated 16.9.2010. After the constitution of the Tribunal, the said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and it was renumbered as T.A. 6405/201 It is the further contention of the petitioner that the Tribunal as per order dated 7.8.2014 allowed the said Transfer Application and the respondents therein were ordered to release the arrears of salary due to Sri. Sasidharan Pillai within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The specific pleadings in the writ petition would thus reveal that on coming to know about the order passed by the Tribunal at the instance of the aforesaid Sasidharan Pillai, the petitioner filed a representation dated 24.7.2014 before the Public Grievance Redressal Cell of the Chief Minister (Sutharyakeralam). Later, it was forwarded to the second respondent. However the 2nd respondent did not pass any order thereon. It is in the said circumstances that the petitioner filed O.A.1010/2015 with the aforementioned prayers before the Tribunal. On considering the contentions, the Tribunal found that there occurred inordinate delay from the part of the petitioner in asserting his rights and in pursuing the remedies to secure those rights. In short, it was found that he was guilty of delay and laches and the Tribunal would not be justified in issuing any direction as sought for by the petitioner to resurrect a stale claim. On arriving at as such a conclusion, the Original Application was dismissed. It is in the said circumstances that this Original Petition was filed challenging the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader.