Loading...

Mr.Biju Joseph vs Union Of India on 12 August, 2009

Kerala High Court
Mr.Biju Joseph vs Union Of India on 12 August, 2009
       

  

  

 
 
  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//

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information