IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2010 / 1ST ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 19383 of 2010(W) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NO.891991627 CT M.L.RIJU, 194 B N B SF, (ON MEDICAL INVALIDATION) MANJALY HOUSE, PARAKKADAVU.P.O., KURUMASSERY VIA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683579. BY ADV. SRI.G.SASIDHARAN CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.S.VISHNU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE COMMANDANT, HEADQURTER 194 BN, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, KADAMTALA, DARJEELING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL. 2. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HEADQUARTERS BSF NORTH BENGAL FRONTIER, KADAMTALA, DARJEELING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL. 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, BORDER SECURITY FORCE, CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN, ASG THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J ------------------- W.P.(C).19383/2010 -------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2010 JUDGMENT Petitioner was a Constable in the BSF. The Medical Board found him unfit for continuing in service and he was directed to be sent out from service on medical invalidation from 28.2.2010. Petitioner there upon submitted applications for voluntary retirement. According to him, his requests, the last of which is Ext.P4, is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent. While the matter is thus pending consideration, he was medically invalidated with effect from 28.2.2010. In this writ petition what the petitioner seeks is a direction for the consideration of Ext.P4. 2. According to the petitioner, the information sought for by the 3rd respondent as to whether it is beneficial for the petitioner to be granted VRS or to be invalidated on medical grounds was not furnished in time and it was therefore that delay has occurred in taking a final decision on Ext.P4. 3. Irrespective of the contentions raised, as at present, W.P.(C).19383/10 2 according to the petitioner, Ext.P4 application made by him for VRS is pending consideration of the 3rd respondent. Therefore, taking note of the above, I direct the 3rd respondent to consider Ext.P4 in the light of the materials available and in accordance with the rules that are prevailing. A decision on Ext.P4 shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within eight weeks of production of a copy of this judgment along with the copy of the writ petition. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, Judge mrcs