Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gracy Abraham Vs. Mathai Joseph

Gracy Abraham vs Mathai Joseph

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Decided Dec 03, 2013
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1100408

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kerala High Court
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gracy Abraham

Respondent

Mathai Joseph

Excerpt

.....dated2610/2013 to the1t respondent. respondent(s)' exhibits:nil ---------------------------------- //true copy// p.a.to judge c.t. ravikumar, j.========================== w.p.(c). no.29650 of2013========================== dated this the 3rd day of december, 2013 judgment the petitioner was working as constable under the border security force in 93 battalion. while working so, he was dismissed from service as per ext.p3 order dated 27.5.2013. the petitioner filed ext.p5 appeal before the second respondent against ext.p3. the said appeal was rejected as per ext.p4 order dated 13.8.2013. aggrieved by exts.p3 and p4, the petitioner preferred ext.p8 representation dated 26.10.2013 before the first respondent. the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is described as a representation, it is a statutory revision petition. it is further submitted that the writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p8 expeditiously and in accordance with law. w.p.(c).29650/13 2 2. i have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned assistant solicitor general. taking note of the aforesaid submission, i am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p8 revision petition expeditiously and in accordance with law. in that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on ext.p8 revision petition expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two months from today. sd/- c.t. ravikumar (judge) spc/ w.p.(c).29650/13 3 c.t. ravikumar, j.judgment september,2010 w.p.(c).29650/13 4

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE3D DAY OF DECEMBER201312TH AGRAHAYANA, 1935 WP(C).No. 29650 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- NO.021466575, EX-CONSTABLE JOSSY JOSEPH, 93 BATTALION, BORDER

SECURITY FORCE RESIDING AT KANDATHIL HOUSE, P.O.EZHACHERRY KOTTAYAM DISTRICT - 686 651. BY ADVS.SRI.S.VISHNU CHEMPAZHANTHIYIL SRI.M.J.AJITH MOHAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, FORCE HEAD QUARTERS, BORDER

SECURITY FORCE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT OFFICE COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD BLOCK NO.10, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

2. INSPECTOR GENERAL, HEADQUARTERS NORTH BENGAL FRONTIER BORDER

SECURITY FORCE, KADAMTALA P.O. DARJELING DISTRICT, WEST BENGAL - 734 011.

3. THE COMMANDANT, 93 BATTALION, BORDER

SECURITY FORCE, SALUGARA BAIKUNTHPUR, WEST BENGAL - 734 008. BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, ASG OF INDIA THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON0312-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 29650 of 2013 (E) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS: ------------------------------ EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CARDINAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, MONIPPALLY, KOTTAYAM. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF THE FITNESS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY CONSULTANT PSYCHIATRIST AT CARDINAL SPECIALTY HOSPITAL DATED45/2013. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF ORDER

NO.3073/ESST/93BN/JJ/2013/8715-8690 DATED275/2013 ISSUED BY THE3D RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER

NO.ESTT-1/89(CF)/NBF/2013/10991-93 DATED138/2013 ISSUED BY THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED206/2013 FILED BEFORE THE2D RESPONDENT. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED29/2013 FILED BEFORE THE1T RESPONDENT. EXT.P7: TRUE COPY OF THE POSTAL RECEIPT. EXT.P8: TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED2610/2013 TO THE1T RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:NIL ---------------------------------- //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

========================== W.P.(C). No.29650 OF2013========================== Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2013 JUDGMENT

The petitioner was working as Constable under the Border Security Force in 93 Battalion. While working so, he was dismissed from service as per Ext.P3 order dated 27.5.2013. The petitioner filed Ext.P5 appeal before the second respondent against Ext.P3. The said appeal was rejected as per Ext.P4 order dated 13.8.2013. Aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P4, the petitioner preferred Ext.P8 representation dated 26.10.2013 before the first respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it is described as a representation, it is a statutory revision petition. It is further submitted that the writ petition itself can be disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 expeditiously and in accordance with law. W.P.(C).29650/13 2 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General. Taking note of the aforesaid submission, I am of the considered view that this writ petition can be disposed of, without making any observation as to the merits of the contentions raised by the petitioner, with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 revision petition expeditiously and in accordance with law. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P8 revision petition expeditiously and in accordance with law, at any rate, within a period of two months from today. Sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (JUDGE) spc/ W.P.(C).29650/13 3 C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

JUDGMENT

September,2010 W.P.(C).29650/13 4

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial