fundamental rights- violation - calclation of the period of one month- pension minutes- right to be heard before making an order against the pensioner

-


The petitioner who was a retired principal in the public service in Sri Lanka was found guilty of corruption and placed on compulsory leave and then interdicted until his retirement. He was later found not guilty after trial. The Public Service Commission directed a deduction of 25% from his gratuity, a deduction of 10% from his pension, and half wages for the period of his interdiction up to retirement. The petitioner contends that the deduction of 10% from his pension was illegal because he was not given an opportunity to explain the findings of the disciplinary inquiry against him, as required by Section 12(2) of the Minutes on Pensions. The court held that the petitioner filed the application within the time limit of one month stipulated in Article 126(2) of the Constitution and that the failure to call for and consider his explanation before deducting 10% from his pension violated his right to equal protection of the law. 

It is long-established Law that, the time limit of one month granted by Article 126 (2) of the Constitution will begin to run only from the date the Petitioner became aware or reasonably should have been aware of the alleged violation of his fundamental rights - vide: Siriwardene vs. Rodrigo(1). In this Application, on the strength of the averments in the Petition, that date would be 09th April 2012.

The Petitioner has filed this Application on 04th May 2012 and has, therefore, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court within the time limit of one month stipulated in Article 126 (2) of the Constitution..


READ JUDGMENT



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CIVIL PROCEDURE AMENDMENT NO 43 OF 2024

-
Image
  defult of appearance - An overview  by GalleLaw Blogger  on the amendment 43 of 2024 to section 86, 87 and 88 to the CPC  VACATION OF exparte ORDERS, JUDGMENTS AND DECREES. The Civil Procedure Code (Ordinance No. 2 of 1889) governed case procedures in the Original and Appellate Courts for nearly 85 years, from 1889 until 1974, when it was replaced by the Administration of Justice Laws No. 44 of 1973 and No. 25 of 1974. During a brief period from 1974 to 1977, the Civil Procedure Code was superseded by the AJL. However, in 1977, the Civil Procedure Code of 1889 was reinstated by the Civil Courts Procedure (Special Provisions) Law No. 19 of 1977. Section 86 of the Civil Procedure Ordinance outlined the procedures for setting aside a decree *nisi*  (a provisional judgment)  under the CPC ordinance. Under Section 86(2), if a defendant provides reasonable grounds for the default, the court was empowered to set aside the decree and resume the case from the s...
Read more

What law governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person? The law that governs the granting or remanding of an accused or suspect person is the Bail Act No. 30 of 1997. This Act provides for the release on bail of persons suspected or accused of being concerned in committing or having committed an offense. It also provides for the granting of anticipatory bail and other related matters. The Bail Act establishes that the grant of bail should be the guiding principle, subject to exceptions as provided for in the Act, and refusal to grant bail should be the exception. It prevails over the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act and other written laws, except for the Release of Remand Prisoners Act, No. 8 of 1991.

-
Image
  SUMMARY BY THE BLOGGER    Background:  The accused has been indicted for the offense of grave sexual abuse of a minor, an offense is punishable under section 365B (2) (b) of the Penal Code. The accused was initially released on bail by the Court. The trial against the accused commenced on 21-07-2022. On 5th October 2023, the Court ordered the accused to be remanded pending further trial. The Lawyer for the accused filed a motion seeking bail, but it was refused.   The petitioner, acting on behalf of the accused, filed an application for revision in the Court of Appeal invoking Article 138 of The Constitution. After considering the facts, circumstances, and relevant law, the Court ordered the immediate release of the accused from remand custody on the earlier bail conditions.   1.   The Court relied on section 263 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Act to remand the accused, but failed to consider the relevant provisions of the Bail Act No. 30 of ...
Read more