G RAJENDRAN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner retired as a Head Constable of the Central Industrial Security Force. He obtained voluntary retirement from service, on 31.7.2001. THE petitioner filed this writ petition alleging that the petitioner was denied the Assured Career Progression benefit as per the Assured Career Progression Scheme, unjustly. THE petitioner's representations in this regard were rejected by Exts.P2, P3, P4 and P6. THE petitioner seeks the following reliefs;

(2.) I am of opinion that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for more than one ground. First is delay. The petitioner retired from service in 2001. The writ petition relates to the service benefits which allegedly became due to the petitioner during his service. The petitioner filed representations regarding the same. By Ext.P3 order dated 2.11.2004, he was informed that his representations were scrutinized and since he had not secured 50 marks for grant of Assured Career Progression benefit, he was not eligible for the same. The petitioner filed another representation on 14.5.2005, which was rejected by Ext.P4 dated 18.3.2005. Again the petitioner filed Ext.P5 representation on 3.2.2006, which was also rejected by Ext.P6 on 11.2.2006. Even after Ext.P6, the petitioner filed this writ petition only on 23.1.2007. It is settled law that repeated filing of representations will not explain delay and laches. In the synopsis of the writ petition, the petitioner submits that the respondents reduced six marks from the marks he received without any reason and denied consequential benefits. But in paragraph 6 of the writ petition, he specifically admits that marks were deducted on account of imposition of penalties of fine on the petitioner, which is absent in the synopsis, which is a suppression of material facts in the synopsis, which is for easy reference of the Judge who considers the matter. The petitioner's contention now is that for imposing minor penalties, marks cannot be deducted. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they submit that as per the scheme, marks can be deducted for imposition of minor penalties also. The petitioner has not produced any material before me to show that for imposing minor punishments, marks cannot be deducted. The petitioner does not have a case that no punishments have been imposed on the petitioner. If that be so, it was for the petitioner to prove before this Court that for imposing punishments, no marks could have been deducted. He has not produced any materials in that regard. Apart from all these, in the counter affidavit it is stated that between 1974 to 2001, the petitioner was imposed with minor punishments 12 times. For all the above reasons, I am not inclined to exercise my discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.