Pavithran.P vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4787 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                            PRESENT

            THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

   WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 21ST MAGHA,1942

                   WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)


PETITIONER/S:

      1     PAVITHRAN.P.
            AGED 58 YEARS
            S/O.KUNHAPPA, PULUKKAL HOUSE, VELLUR (PO),
            PAYYANNUR.

      2     M.NARAYANAN,
            AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O.P.KANNAN, "MUTTATH HOUSE", AYATHRAVYAL P.O.,
            KARIVELLUR-670 521.

      3     SUDHAKARAN.K.
            AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O.C.M.KANNAN, KODAKKAL VEEDU,
            KUNHIMANGALAM P.O., THALAYI, KANNUR-670 309.

      4     KRISHNAN.K.,
            AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O.KUNHANBU, KORAMBETH VEEDU, KOTTUR VAYAL,
            SREE KANDAPURAM, KANNUR-670 631.

      5     KUNJIRAMAN.C.
            AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O.CHERAN, CHERAN VEEDU, THATTERI, CHUZALI P.O.,
            KANNUR-670 142.

      6     BALAKRISHNAN.P,
            AGED 57 YEARS
            S/O.P.KELU, PAICHADATH VEEDU, VELLUR P.O.,
            PAYYANNUR, KANNUR-670 307.

            BY ADVS.
            SRI.M.PROMODH KUMAR
            SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN

RESPONDENT/S:

      1     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
            REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
            TRANSPORT BAHVAN, FORT P.O., TRIVANDRUM-695 023.
 WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

                               2

      2     THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION OFFICE,
            PAYYANNUR, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 307.

      3     THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
            KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION OFFICE,
            ERNAKULAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-683 101.




            SC SRI.T.P SAJAN

     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
10.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

                                    3




                            JUDGMENT

According to the petitioners, the petitioners were

provisionally engaged as Conductors in KSRTC.

Thereafter, the petitioners were regularised in service as

Reserved Conductors with effect from 07.04.2012, vide

Exts.P1 to P6. On attaining the age of superannuation,

the first petitioner retired from service on 31.3.2018,

evidenced by Exs.P7 pension payment order.

2. The petitioners have approached this Court

through this writ petition, seeking a declaration that

their provisional service which preceded regular service

is liable to be counted for pension and pensionary

benefits in the light of the Larger Bench decision in

K.L.Francis v. KSRTC and another [2015 (2) KHC

1] and to issue fresh order modifying Ext.P7 order.

They have also sought for a writ of mandamus

commanding the respondents to reconsider their request WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

for payment of pension afresh and grant pension to

them reckoning the period of provisional service in the

light of the Larger Bench decision of this Court in

K.L.Francis's case (supra).

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC

representing the respondents.

4. During the course of arguments, it was

submitted that, Special Leave petitions are pending

before the Apex Court against the judgment of the

Larger Bench of this Court in K.L.Francis's case

(supra) and that, the Apex Court has granted interim

stay in some of the SLPs, only against further

proceedings in Contempt of Court cases.

5. In the result, in the light of the judgment of

the Larger Bench in K.L.Francis's case (supra), this

Court is of the view that provisional service followed by

regular service is liable to be counted for pension.

Therefore, any such prior service of the petitioners also

shall be taken into, as per the judgment in WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

K.L.Francis's case (supra) for the purpose of

reckoning pension. Revised pension order shall be

issued. However, it is made clear that this would be

subject to the out come in Special Leave Petitions filed

by the KSRTC against the judgment in K.L.Francis's

case (supra). Needful shall be done by the

respondents within a period of three months from the

date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

This Writ Petition is disposed of as above.

Sd/-

SUNIL THOMAS, JUDGE

R.AV WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 1ST PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 2ND PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 3RD PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 4TH PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 08.02.2013 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 5TH PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 07.04.2012 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO 6TH PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE PENSION PAYMENT ORDERS DATED 18.01.2019 1ST PETITIONER'S.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE 2ND PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING OF EX GRATIA PENSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING OF EX GRATIA PENSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 17.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE 4TH PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING OF EX GRATIA PENSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 01.01.2020.

WP(C).No.20326 OF 2020(M)

EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE 5TH PETITIONER'S CERTIFICATE REGARDING OF EX GRATIA PENSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.08.2020.

EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH PETITIONER'S REGARDING OF EX GRATIA PENSION ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 28.11.2019.

   RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS         NIL