RAMABADRAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims that he was serving the CRPF since 1967 and was dismissed from service as per Ext.P1 order dated 18.05.1977, consequent to conviction under Section 10(m) of CRPF Act on account of unauthorised absence from 12.01.1976 to 16.05.1977. It is stated that he submitted Ext.P2 representation before the second respondent on 17.10.2019 and though as per Ext.P3 letter, he was informed that the representation was being forwarded to the Special DG, North East Zone, CRPF, Guwahati, no further action was taken. Petitioner has therefore sought for a direction to the 3 rd respondent-the Special Director General to pass appropriate orders on his representation Ext.P2.

(2.) When the delay in approaching even the respondents i.e., for the period from 1977 to 2019 was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri M.P. Madhavankutty argued that in the light of the judgments in Bhuvanendran N v. Union of India and Others [2014 (3) KHC 286] and Rajan C v. Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Others [2009 (1) KHC 151], the delay in this case is liable to be condoned, as the petitioner was serving the CRPF and his dismissal was on the ground of unauthorised absence, which according to the learned counsel, was in gross violation of rules.

(3.) In the judgment in Bhuvanendran's case (supra) it is seen that petitioner therein was discharged from service on 01.05.1981. His representation was rejected initially in the year 2000 and thereafter in 2003 and writ petition was filed in 2004. Seeing that the claim raised there, was for pensionary benefits, this Court found that the delay was liable to be condoned, in the case of personnel of armed services, who had been working in rough and harsh places as well as in the case of low paid employees.