Kerala High Court
Chairman & Managing Director, Kerala ... vs S.Dathan on 4 August, 2025
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
1
2025:KER:57363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2017 IN RP NO.392 OF 2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED
09.11.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.33370/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
2 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KOTTARAKARA DEPOT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT/S:
S.DATHAN
THAMARASSERY, T.K.M.C.P.O., KARIKODE,KOLLAM, PIN-691 005,(DRIVER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION),KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT,
KOTTARAKKARA.)
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2
2025:KER:57363
BY ADV SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
3
2025:KER:57363
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-Court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act assails the order dated 04.10.2017 passed in R.P. No.392/2017 which affirms the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.33370/2016 dated 09.11.2016 whereby the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
2. The appellants are the first and second respondents in the writ petition and the review petitioners in the Review Petition. The respondent herein was the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was an empanelled conductor in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'), initially for the period from 23.02.1997 to 21.07.2000 and later from 2006 to 2011. Therefore, he is entitled for regularisation in the service of the Corporation in terms of Ext.P11 order issued by the Government. The claim of the respondent WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 4 2025:KER:57363 was rejected by the Corporation as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the respondent do not possess 10 years service, which is a condition precedent for claiming regularisation in terms of Ext.P11 order. Being aggrieved the respondent filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P1 order.
3.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by setting aside Ext.P1 and directed the appellants to regularise the service of the respondent in accordance with Ext.P11 Government Order, within a period two months.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the appellants - Corporation filed Review Petition, R.P. No.392/2017, challenging the judgment passed in W.P.(C) No.33370/2016. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition as not maintainable.
3.3 The appellants being aggrieved filed the present Writ Appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants clearly stated WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 5 2025:KER:57363 that according to the Government Order [Ext.P11] dated 22.12.2011, the respondent was eligible to be regularised. However, the said Government Order was modified by another Government Order dated 21.11.2013, clarifying on the prevalence of the duty clause of 120 days as per the Government Order dated 22.12.2011, incorporating the condition of minimum 120 days' duty per year in condition No.7 of the Government Order.
4.1 Admittedly, the respondent had not completed 10 years of service having 120 days' attendance in a particular year. Thereafter, the Government Order dated 22.11.2013 was challenged in W.P.(C) No. 5113/2013, which was allowed. Being aggrieved, the appellant - Corporation filed Writ Appeal, W.A. No.340/2014 and connected appeals which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.03.2014. The appellants - Corporation, thereafter, filed Civil Appeal Nos.4435- 4438/2017 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the appellate order. The Apex Court on 24.03.2017 passed the WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 6 2025:KER:57363 following Order:
"Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the Government Order dated 21.11.2013, the employees seeking regularisation are required to have 120 days of minimum period of service in a year. The High Court has held that this requirement cannot be applied to persons already working prior to the date of the said order. We are unable to uphold the view of the High Court. Before granting regularisation, appropriate conditions for regularisation can be laid down even for employees already working. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. The appeals are allowed accordingly."
4.2 In view of the order of the Apex Court, the Government Order dated 21.11.2013 stood restored. Meaning thereby, the condition of working 120 days a year became mandatory.
5. As per the Ext.R1(a) Enquiry Report dated 23.02.2016, the respondent never worked for 120 days in each year for a period of 10 years. Thereafter, the respondent attained the age of superannuation during the pendency of this Writ Appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 7 2025:KER:57363 Ext.R1(a) as well as the modified Government Order dated 21.11.2013 were not available before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the respondent is eligible for regularisation. However, in view of the Apex Court order dated 24.03.2017, the respondent would not be eligible for regularisation. Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the writ petition be dismissed.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error so as to interfere with the judgment. He further contended that the other similarly situated employees were regularised, however, the respondent alone was left out. In such a situation the principle of parity would apply and the respondent would also be entitled for regularisation and the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for the WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 8 2025:KER:57363 appellants - Corporation and Sri. R.Pushpangathan Pillai learned Counsel for the respondent.
9. It is not in dispute that the Government Order [Ext.P11] dated 22.12.2011 stands modified/superseded by Government Order dated 21.11.2013, which has been produced before this Court. The said Government Order clarifies the condition of minimum 120 days' duty per year, incorporated in sub para (5) of para XL VI in the Government Order, as a requisite qualification to be enumerated as one among other qualifications stipulated in condition No.7 of the Government Order.
9.1 Admittedly, the respondent was working with one of the Ministers for six years. Therefore, he has not completed 10 years of service, with 120 days' attendance each year. In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be countenanced. Accordingly, the same is hereby setaside. As a consequence, the writ petition stands dismissed. WA NO. 2181 OF 2017 9 2025:KER:57363 The Writ Appeal stands allowed and W.P.(C) No.33370/2016 stands dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim matters stand closed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI JUDGE Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M. JUDGE jjj