High Court Kerala High Court

C.Rajappan Asari vs The State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
C.Rajappan Asari vs The State Of Kerala on 10 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 20750 of 2008(T)


1. C.RAJAPPAN ASARI, S/O.CHELLAPPAN ASARI
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. THE STATE OF KERALA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED

                For Respondent  : No Appearance

The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI

 Dated :10/07/2008

 O R D E R
                            V.GIRI,J.
                      -------------------------
                 W.P ( C) No. 20750 of 2008
                     --------------------------
               Dated this the 10th July, 2008

                       J U D G M E N T

Petitioner retired from Security Service as an

Assistant Security officer on 30.9.2000. He was promoted

to said post by Exhibit P1 order dated 13.4.2000 while he

was working as Head Guard. According to the petitioner

similarly situated persons were promoted as Security

officers on a provisional basis and they had also retired

from service. Accordingly on the basis of Exhibits P2 and

P3 orders dated 15.11.2002 and 13.4.2005, petitioner

sent a representation to the Honourable Chief Minister as

per Exhibit P4 dated 12.7.2006 six year after his

retirement. This was met with Exhibit P5. He was

promoted to the said post in 2000 and was granted such

promotions as he was eligible. His request for

retrospective effect was turned down. The plea for review

by the petitioner is also rejected under Exhibit P7.

Exhibits P5 and P7 have been challenged in this writ

W.P ( C) No. 20750 of 2008
2

petition.

2. In my view, petitioner’s claim for retrospective

effect of his promotion to the post of Asst. Security Officer

and further promotions on the said post is highly belated.

Representation sent to the Chief Minister six years after his

retirement was not adequate as such.

In these circumstances, I do not think it is justified on

the part of the petitioner to require the Government to go

back for a period of another 10 years and find out whether

the petitioner should have been promoted as Asst. Security

Officer and then proceed to give due promotion as such.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)
ma

W.P ( C) No. 20750 of 2008
3

W.P ( C) No. 20750 of 2008
4