Shaffique, J.
This appeal is filed by the writ petitioner challenging the judgment dated 02.04.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No.4744 of 2012.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Upper Division Clerk in the 1st respondent Devaswom Board, was dismissed from service as per order dated 23.08.1997. The matter came to be challenged before this Court by filing O.P. No.560 of 1998. The Original Petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to file a review petition. The review petition was dismissed by order dated 08.12.2003. Thereafter petitioner challenged the order by filing W.P.(C) No. 26475 of 2004. While the writ petition was pending, by an order dated 12.05.2005, the petitioner was reinstated in service on condition that he will not put forth any further claim for the period he was kept out of service. Petitioner submitted a representation stating that such condition cannot be imposed on him. However, writ petition was disposed of directing to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. After considering the representation, the same was rejected by the Devaswom Board. This again was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.
(C) No.13874 of 2010. By judgment dated 19.08.2010 this Court has quashed the order and the Secretary was directed to submit a report on the representation afresh to enable the Board to take a decision. But it was made clear that the report shall be prepared by the Secretary untrammelled by the observations made in the judgment. Secretary of the Board was directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and place the matter before the Board along with his report. It is thereafter Ext.P15 order was passed on 08.02.2012 which reads as under:
“The Hon'ble High Court of Kerala by judgment dated directed the Board to take a decision on the representation dated 17.06.2008 filed by M.T.Radhakrishnan, after getting report from Secretary, Board examined the representation, report of Secretary and all relevant facts.
M.T.Radhakrishan was terminated from service on 23.08.1997 based on enquiry report fining guilty of certain charges levelled against him. But he was reinstated on 12.05.2005 on humanitarian ground with a specific undertaking that he will not claim service benefits during the period of suspension and during the period when he was not in service till reinstatement. He gave the undertaking and accepted the punishment. Though he is estopped from claiming any benefits there after he filed a review petition which was dismissed on 14.02.2007 by passing a considered order. Thereafter on 17.06.2008 again he filed a similar petition without any change of circumstance or fresh reasoning. If such petitions are entertained, there cannot be any finality in such cases. The Secretary did not consider these aspects. Hence it is not acceptable.”
3. It is impugning Ext.P15 that this writ petition came to be filed. Learned Single Judge after considering the matter on merits observed that since the petitioner had submitted an undertaking that he would not claim any benefits for the period that he was kept out of service, now he cannot turn round and seek for reinstatement with all service benefits. It is observed that the reinstatement was made on humanitarian consideration and therefore there is no scope for challenging Ext.P15 order. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that by issuing Ext.P15 order the Devaswom Board did not consider the report of the Secretary, Ext.P14. It is submitted that Ext.P14 was in favour of the petitioner and if Ext.P14 was properly considered, the petitioner will be entitled for the reliefs sought for.
5. It is mentioned in Ext.P15 order that the petitioner had given an undertaking that he will not claim the service benefits during the period when he was not in service till his reinstatement and having given such an undertaking accepting the condition, it was not open for the petitioner to seek otherwise.
6. Having gone through Ext.P15 order we do not think that the Devaswom Board did not consider the report of the Secretary. The Board was not bound to accept the report. It could always take a decision after perusing the report, which is apparently done. The learned Single Judge also did not feel it necessary to interfere with Ext.P15. We do not find any perversity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge in order to exercise the appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
Ashok Bhushan, Acting Chief Justice.
A.M. Shaffique, Judge.
ttb/11/12