V.Chandran vs M.P.Dinesh Ips
2021 Latest Caselaw 14009 Ker

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                          PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
  WEDNESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JULY 2021 / 16TH ASHADHA, 1943
                CON.CASE(C) NO. 381 OF 2020
  AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 21891/2019 OF HIGH
                      COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS:

    1    V.CHANDRAN,
         AGED 59 YEARS
         S/O. KUHIRAMAN, VELLAYI HOUSE, KINATHIL,
         EDACHAKKAL P.O, KASARAGOD 671 310
    2    KUNHIKANNAN K.V,
         AGED 59 YEARS
         S/O. KANNAN, KOODOOR HOUSE, KANAYI P.O,
         PAYYANNUR, KANNUR.
         BY ADVS.
         M.PROMODH KUMAR
         SMT.MAYA CHANDRAN
RESPONDENTS:

    1    M.P.DINESH IPS,
         (AGE AND FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE
         PETITIONER)
         MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
         CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P.O,
         TRIVANDRUM 695 023
    2    YOUSUF K,
         AGED 52 YEARS
         (FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER)
         DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD
         TRANSPORT CORPORATE OFFICE, PAYYANNUR,
         KANNUR DISTRICT 670 307
         BY ADV SHRI.T.P SAJAN, SC, KERALA STATE ROAD
         TRANSPORT CORPORATION - KSRTC

         SC, KSRTC-SRI.T.P.SAJAN

THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 07.07.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 Cont.Case(C)381 OF 2020          2


                           JUDGMENT

The petitioners have filed this Contempt Case (Civil),

alleging non-compliance of the directions contained in Annexure-

A1 judgment of this Court dated 03.09.2019 in W.P.(C)No.21891

of 2019. The petitioners have approached this Court in that writ

petition, seeking a declaration that their provisional service

followed by 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 set

aside Exts.P5 and P6 orders. They have also sought for a writ of

mandamus commanding the respondents to reconsider their

request for payment of pension afresh and grant pension to them

with effect from 01.06.2017 onwards in the light of the Larger

Bench decision of this Court in K.L.Francis's case (supra).

Paragraphs 4 and 5 of Annexure-A1 judgment read thus;

"4. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court 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 the 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 can be counted for pension. Therefore, any such prior service of the petitioners also shall be taken into account as per the judgment in K.L.Francis's case (supra) for the purpose of reckoning pension. However, it is made clear that this would be subject to the Special Leave petitions filed by KSRTC against the judgment in K.L.Francis's case (supra). Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

2. On 03.03.2020, when this Contempt Case came up for

admission, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC pointed out

an order of the Apex Court, staying further proceedings in

Contempt Cases filed before this Court in the matter of counting

provisional service followed by regular service for pension. The

learned Standing Counsel submitted that an affidavit of the 1 st

respondent shall be placed on record within three weeks.

3. Along with the affidavit filed by the present Managing

Director of KSRTC, Annexure-R1(a) order No.PA7/011492/18

dated 03.02.2020 and Annexure-R1(b) order dated 13.11.2018 in

I.A.No.135219 of 2018 and connected interlocutory applications

in SLP(C)Nos.25272-25276 of 2015 are placed on record.

Paragraphs 3 to 5 of that affidavit read thus;

"3. It is respectfully submitted that the Corporation has challenged the Larger Bench decision in K.L.Francis's case by filing Special Leave to Appeal Nos.25272-25276/19. The Special Leave Petitions are pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Corporation is advised and it is bona fide believed that the judgment in K.L.Francis's case will be set aside and the contention raised by the Corporation will be upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Since the Special Leave Petitions are pending consideration of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and since the Corporation was advised that the SLPs will be allowed, Corporation has decided to implement the directions in the judgment directing reckoning of provisional service for pension on the basis of K.L.Francis's case, only after the disposal of the Special Leave Petition.

4. On receipt of the judgment, as per direction contained therein, the request of the petitioner was considered by the Corporation and order had been issued by the then Managing Director, informing the petitioner that as Special Leave Petitions are pending, the Corporation is unable to take a decision at present and the case of the petitioners will be considered after disposal of the Special Leave Petitions. A true copy of the order issued pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court vide ref.No.PA7/011492/18 dated 03.02.2020 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R1(a).

5. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per order dated 13.11.2018 has directed that, there shall be a

stay of further proceedings in the Contempt of Court cases filed before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. A true copy of the interim order dated 13.11.2018 in I.A.No.135219/2018 and connected I.As in Special Leave to Appeal (C)Nos.25272-25276/2019 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-R1(b)."

In the above circumstances, taking note of the pendency of

SLP (C)Nos.25272-25276 of 2015 and also Annexure-R1(b) order

of the Apex Court dated 13.11.2018, this Contempt Case filed on

14.02.2020 is closed, without prejudice to the right of the

petitioners to move this Court afresh, if found necessary, after

the disposal of the Special Leave Petitions.

Sd/-

                                           ANIL K. NARENDRAN
                                                 JUDGE

yd
 Cont.Case(C)381 OF 2020      6

                          APPENDIX
PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE A1        CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 03-
                   09-2019 IN W.P(C) NO. 21891/2019 ON THE
                   FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.
ANNEXURE A2        TRUE COPY OF THE COVERING LETTER DATED

14-10-2019 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE RESPONDENTS.

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES:

ANNEXURE R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER VIDE REFERENCE NO.PA7/011492/18 DATED 03.02.2020.

ANNEXURE R1(B) TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 13.11.2018 IN IA.NO.135219 OF 2018 AND CONNECTED IAs IN THE SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C)NOS.25272-25276 OF 2015.

TRUE COPY

P.A. TO JUDGE