IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 WA.No.1901 of 2006(A) --------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.4121/2001 Dated 17/05/2005 .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, C.R.P.F., CGO COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. BY MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------ A.THAHAMANI, KARUGATHARAYIL HOUSE, THAZHAVA, KADATHOOR P.O., KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM. BY MR.V.BHASKARAN PILLAI, ADVOCATE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------ Writ Appeal No.1901 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009. J U D G M E N T Kurian Joseph, J. The respondents in O.P.No.4121/2001 are the appellants herein. The writ petitioner approached this Court with the following prayer: 1) To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to grant him disablement compensation and medical reimbursement or to absorb him in any suitable vacancy in the force within a time limit prescribed by this Hon'ble Court. The request was rejected as per Exhibit P9 order by the second respondent (second appellant) stating that the writ petitioner was not entitled to financial assistance for disablement pension since he was only an Auxiliary Constable working on daily wages. As far as the fresh employment is concerned, it was also stated in Exhibit P9 that “........the petitioner has got right leg injury and W.A.No.1901/2006 2 could not walk properly. Therefore, he is unfit for the post of follower also in CRPF”. 2. As far as the first issue regarding disablement pension and medical reimbursement are concerned, we are afraid, the stand taken by the second respondent in Exhibit P9 cannot be appreciated. The writ petitioner had approached this Court earlier leading to Exhibit P8 judgment dated 09.11.1998 in O.P.No.16743/1993. This Court had entered a factual finding regarding his entitlement for disablement benefits. The relevant portion from Exhibit P8 judgment is extracted below: “Since petitioner was appointed only in the auxiliary duty on daily wages and services are liable to be terminated without notice, he may not be able to get reinstatement even though a formal discharge order was not served on him and during his appointment all formalities of regular appointment were complied with. But, he is entitled to disablement benefits only because of the fracture and the injury got in the course of employment he was not able to continue the work. His work and conduct was certified to be good during the period of service as can be seen from Ext.P3. The fact that he was appointed only as an auxiliary constable on daily wages is not a reason for denying disablement compensation and medical benefits as the accident happened during the course of employment”. W.A.No.1901/2006 3 The said judgment has become final since the appellants had not pursued the matter in appeal. In view of the finality regarding the factual finding and the entitlement for disablement pension and medical benefits, the appellants are not justified in taking such a stand against the writ petitioner in Exhibit P9. 3. The second contention is regarding absorption. It is admitted in Exhibit P9 that the petitioner has suffered an injury and that he cannot walk properly. The petitioner can also be thought of absorption in any civilian post where he can manage with such disability. These are all matters for the appellants to consider. 4. The learned Single Judge has only directed the second respondent (second appellant) to disburse the disablement pension in view of the finality to Exhibit P8 judgment as extracted above. Learned Single Judge has also made it clear that the judgment will not stand in the way of absorbing the writ petitioner in suitable post in lieu of granting pension. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Learned Assistant Solicitor General W.A.No.1901/2006 4 submits that the appellants may be given a further period of at least two months from today to disburse the pension. The judgment under appeal is dated 17.05.2005. The time fixed by the learned Single Judge is only three months. Now it is more than three years and yet in view of the submission made by the learned Assistant Solicitor General, we reluctantly grant a period of two months from today making it clear that in the event of any delay beyond the said period, the writ petitioner shall be entitled to interest for the arrears of pension at the rate of 10% and the officers responsible for the delay shall be personally liable for the same. Issue copy of this judgment urgently. KURIAN JOSEPH JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE smp W.A.No.1901/2006 5 KURIAN JOSEPH & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. W.A. No.1901 OF 2006 J U D G M E N T 16.02.2009