AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.—This writ appeal comes with an application seeking condonation of delay of 47 days. He attributes delay in the institution of this appeal to the hospitalization of his mother. We take it as a reasonable explanation. The application for condonation of delay is allowed.
The appeal is against the decision of the learned Single Judge refusing to entertain the writ petition on account of inordinate delay in making a claim.
The relevant facts are as under: The petitioner joined KSRTC as a Conductor on 21.12.1976. From 20.10.1984 to 06.05.1996, he was on Leave Without Allowance in terms of Appendix XIIA of Part-1 KSR. He thereafter, joined duty on 07.05.1996. His rank was 665 in the gradation list of Special Grade Conductors as on 01.04.2001. His juniors in that rank list K. Raveendran Pillai and others who were still down in the list were promoted as Station Master on 01.11.2004. Thereafter, they were further promoted as Inspectors on 04.02.2005. The petitioner did not challenge any those promotions till he retired from service on 31.05.2005, though, he is stated to have made different representations to the establishment.
After his retirement, he again represented claiming that he be promoted to the category of Station Master and to the category of Inspectors with effect from the respective dates on which the admitted junior was promoted. Ultimately, he moved this Court by filing this writ petition on 30.07.2007, two years after he retired on 31.05.2005. The learned single Judge was not persuaded to deal with the writ petition as it was grossly delayed. It is trite law that the repeated representations to the superiors in the establishment cannot keep a cause of action alive and cannot be treated to preserve for a person reliefs which he ought to have claimed before the court or Tribunals within reasonable time frame. If representations are not attended to by superiors in service, that itself is a cause of action. On query, we are told by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that his client was abroad in the Middle East after availing the Leave Without Allowance as granted by the KSRTC. Whatever be the reason, we do not find way to interfere with the judicial discretion exercised by the learned single Judge by refusing to entertain the writ petition. The appeal does not merit acceptance within the format of an intra court appeal u/s 5 of the High Court Act.
The appeal therefore fails and in the result, the same is dismissed.