IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
BIJU AUGUSTINE.,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. AUGUSTINE, CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA DEPOT - 685581, (RESIDING AT
KAVALAKATTU HOUSE, VELLIAMATTOM.P.O., KURUTHIKKALAM - 685 588).
BY ADV K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023:
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (PAY FIXATION CELL),
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
5 THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA DEPOT - 685
581.
6 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA DEPOT - 686 661.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI DEEPU THANKAN - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 Memorandum issued to him by the Executive Director of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), whereby, his fixation of pay has been finalized in a particular manner. The petitioner says that he was subjected to certain punishments on 02.12.2009 and 11.01.2010 respectively and that even though this factum is admitted, instead of effecting it within time, same were put into force only on 10.10.2017. He says that, it is, therefore that, in Ext.P8 Memorandum, his pay has been fixed erroneously and that this is in violation of Part I of the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). He then asserts that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained in law at all because the KSRTC themselves have issued Ext.P3 Memorandum and that the contents of the former goes contrary to the prescriptions in the latter.
2. The petitioner thus, prays that Ext.P8 be quashed and the competent respondent be directed to reconsider the matter, so as to grant him the denied increments and benefits of salary without any further delay.
3. The afore submissions of Sri.K.P.Justine - learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, were refuted by Sri.Deepu Thankan - learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, who initially sought time to WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022 3 file counter pleadings, but they contended that, as is evident from Ext.P8, the petitioner's fixation of pay has been done strictly in the manner as is postulated in law. He submitted that since the petitioner was on leave, as has been recorded in Ext.P8, his punishments and the recovery ordered against him could not be effected, which had led to the same being deferred to a future date. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I must say that I cannot find full force with the afore explanation offered by Sri.Deepu Thankan because there is nothing on record to show that the punishments of the petitioner had been ordered to be deferred at the time when it was issued. Of course, it may be true that petitioner was on leave and that the KSRTC was finding it difficult to implement their orders of imposing punishments on him, but it would not, however, be justified for them to fix his pay scale in the manner as has been done in Ext.P8, unless the reasons for the same are specifically ordered and settled after hearing him.
5. I am persuaded to this view also because the impact of Ext.P8, prima facie, appears to be two folded on the petitioner, because he has already been imposed with punishments and subsequently, his pay scale appears to have been settled in such a manner to cause him some prejudice.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the entire matter will WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022 4 require to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the KSRTC, taking note of the specific contentions of the petitioner and after affording him an opportunity of being heard, so that his allegations regarding fixation of pay can be looked into and decided in a manner as is apposite in law.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, but clarifying that I have not held Ext.P8 to be in error affirmatively, I order this writ petition and set aside the said order; with a consequential direction to the competent Authority of the KSRTC to reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, adverting specifically to Ext.P3 Memorandum; thus culminating in an appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
I also, make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the petitioner's contentions finally and that they are left to be decided appropriately by the competent Authority in terms of the afore directions, for which purpose, all rival contentions are left open.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE rp WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16533/2022 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.16 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PLE4-006811/ 98 DATED 3.10.1998.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT NOTE AS RECORDED IN PAGE NO.77 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.79 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.80 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.81 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P6 (A) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.82 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P6 (B) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.83 OF THE SERVICE BOOK. Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.10.2021. Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL7/ 002476/ 2021 DATED 23.11.2021.