IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 23027 of 2009(W)
1. MR.BIJU JOSEPH, ADICHILAMACKAL,
... Petitioner
2. MRS.MINI BIJU, ADICHILAMACKAL,
Vs
1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,
3. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,
4. THE COMMANDANT, HEAD QUARTERS,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.C.PADMAKUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :12/08/2009
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
-----------------------------
W.P(C) No.23027 of 2009-W
------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of August, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
Heard Sri.C.C.Padmakumar, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, the learned Assistant Solicitor
General of India appearing for the respondents.
The first petitioner was a Constable in the Boarder Security Force.
The second petitioner is his wife. The first petitioner was proceeded
against for unauthorized absence and ultimately by Ext.P6 order dated
30.8.2008, the fourth respondent dismissed him from service with effect
from that date. It was also ordered that the period of absence namely the
period from 25.7.2007 to 30.8.2008 (403 days) will be treated as `dies-
non’. Aggrieved by Ext.P6 order to the extent it directs that the period of
absence be treated as ‘dies-non’, the second petitioner has filed Ext.P7
petition before the third respondent. The second petitioner submits that
the first petitioner is undergoing treatment for mental disability and is
not desirous of challenging Ext.P6 in toto and that her request in Ext.P7
is confined only to the denial of salary and allowances for the period of
403 days from 25.7.2007 to 30.8.2008. The second petitioner submits
that in view of the mental disability of the first petitioner he could not file
a petition in time and that the original of Ext.P7 representation was
W.P(C) No.23027 of 2009-W 2
submitted by the second petitioner as the next friend of the first
petitioner. The second petitioner submit that it was due to the medical
condition of the first petitioner that the delay in filing in Ext.P7 has
occurred. In this writ petition the petitioners pray for a writ in the nature
of mandamus commanding the third respondent to consider Ext.P7 and
pass orders thereon within a time limit to be fixed by this Court.
The pleadings disclose that the first petitioner was dismissed from
service on 30.8.2008. Though as per the service regulations, Ext.P6
ought to have been challenged within three months, having regard to the
medical condition of the first petitioner and the fact that he challenges
Ext.P6 only to the extent it directs that the period of absence from duty
shall be treated as `dies-non’, I am of the opinion that the third
respondent should entertain Ext.P7 appeal as one filed within time and
take a decision thereon expeditiously. In view of the fact that the first
petitioner is mentally disabled, I also direct the third respondent shall
afford the second petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.
Final orders in the matter shall be passed within four months from the
date on which the petitioners produce a certified copy of this judgment
before the third respondent.
Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN
ab JUDGE
//True Copy//
