IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2009 / 2ND SRAVANA 1931 W.A.No. 2961 of 2007() AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.20588/1999 Dated 31/01/2007 APPELLANTS: RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 1. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, MADRAS RANGE, AVADI, CHENNAI-65. 2. THE PRINCIPAL, RECRUITS TRAINING CENTRE-II, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, AVADI, CHENNAI-65. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-3. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER M.SALILAN (EX RECRUIT/CT NO.861162052), S/O.K.G.NAIR, MUKKUTHAYIL HOUSE, VALLIYAYI, P.O.PATHAYAKUNNU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI. GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------- W.A. NO. 2961 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in the Original Petition are the appellants. The respondent herein was the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are the following: 2. The petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force in December, 1986. While undergoing training at the Recruits Training Centre-II, Avady, the petitioner sustained injury on his left leg on 4.4.1987. He was hospitalised and later discharged on 30.5.1987 with advise to take six weeks' rest. The Medical Officer in charge of the hospital gave the opinion that the petitioner cannot undertake active training for a minimum period of two years. Since he did not complete the basic training, it was found that he cannot be an active member of the Force and, therefore, his services were terminated on W.A. NO. 2961/2007 2 24.9.1987 under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Ext.P1 is the said order. The petitioner filed Ext.P2 representation claiming that he may be reinstated in service or provided with alternative employment. To that petition, he was served with Ext.P3 reply stating that he cannot be reinstated in service. The petitioner again represented, which was replied by Ext.P4 stating that all the posts of Ministerial/Hospital cadres, including Group 'D' posts have been combatised and a person who has already been declared medically unfit cannot be employed. Later, the respondent-petitioner was served with Ext.P5 communication dated 15.11.1995 calling for his personal particulars in the proforma enclosed. The petitioner submitted the details, as is evident from Ext.P6. When no action was taken , he submitted Exts.P7 and P8 representations before the Directorate General, C.R.P.F. and the Government respectively. He was told by Ext.P9 that he was not entitled to get any service benefits. The petitioner approached this Court by filing O.P. No.9309 of 1999. This Court disposed of the said Original Petition directing the third respondent therein to consider his representation for accommodating him in some clerical post. His representation was rejected by Ext.P12 communication dated 23.6.1999. Therefore, the present Writ Petition was filed, seeking a direction to the appellants to provide alternative employment or to grant him disability W.A. NO. 2961/2007 3 pension. 3. The appellants filed a counter affidavit in the Original Petition resisting the prayers therein. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in Kunal Singh v. Union of India (2003) 4 S.C.C. 524, directed the appellants to provide suitable employment to the respondent-petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said direction, this Writ Appeal is filed. 4. We heard the learned counsel on both sides. The direction to give re-employment was issued relying on the decision in Kunal Singh's Case (supra). It was a decision rendered under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The said Act came into force only on 7.2.1996. The respondent-petitioner was terminated from service on 24.9.1987. So, the Act was not in force at the time of his discharge. After the enforcement of the Act, the Central Government issued a notification under Section 47 exempting combatised personal of the C.R.P.F. from the operation of the said provision. So, the ground on which the learned Single Judge granted reliefs in the Original Petition is unsustainable. The decision of the Apex Court mentioned above has no application to the facts of this case. W.A. NO. 2961/2007 4 5. The second relief sought in the Writ Petition, which was not considered by the learned Single Judge, was concerning grant of disability pension. No rule has been brought to our notice enabling a discharged trainee from the C.R.P.F. to get disability pension. In view of the above position, the Writ Appeal is allowed. The judgment of the learned Single Judge is reversed and the Original Petition is dismissed. (K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ W.A. NO. 2961/2007 5 K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. W.A. NO.2961/2007 JUDGMENT 24th July, 2009