M.Y.Salim vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1248 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

      THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

                   TH
   FRIDAY, THE 28       DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA, 1943



                        WP(C) NO. 2895 OF 2022


PETITIONER/S:


 M.Y.SALIM,AGED 61 YEARS, (RETIRED CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE
 ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION), S/O.YOONUS KUNJU, NIDHI VIHAR,
 NEAR MSM COLLEGE, KAYAMKULAM P.O, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT-690 502.


 BY ADVS.
 C.M.EBRAHIM
 JOBI.A.THAMPI
 SHOUKATH HUSAIN



RESPONDENT/S:


   1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
      REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
      FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.



   2. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE
      ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT,
      THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.



   3. THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION), KERALA
      STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
      FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 023.



   4. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KERALA STATE ROAD
      TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KAYAMKULAM, PIN-690 502.
 WP(C) NO. 2895 OF 2022
                             2




 SRI DEEPU THANKAN, STANDING COUNSEL



     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 28.01.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 2895 OF 2022
                                      3


                                JUDGMENT

The petitioner contends that he has rendered continuous

service in the 1st respondent Corporation during the period from 21.12.1981

to 26.2.1996 and has acquired a qualifying service of 14 years 2 months and

5 days. According to the petitioner, every employee, who has got qualifying

service of more than 9 years, is entitled to a superannuation pension. He

contends that no disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner

to date. Being aggrieved by the refusal on the part of the respondents in

releasing the pension and other benefits due to the petitioner, he

approached the 2nd respondent and submitted Ext.P5 representation. The

petitioner asserts that no action was taken by the respondents on the same.

It is in the afore circumstances that the petitioner is before this Court

seeking for a declaration and for issuance of directions to the 2nd

respondent to consider Ext.P5 and to take a decision.

2. When the writ petition came up for admission, Sri.Ebrahim C.M.,

the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the limited

request of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the 2nd respondent

for expeditious consideration of Ext.P5.

3. I have Heard Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel

appearing for the respondents, who submits that if the request of the

petitioner is only for consideration and disposal of Exhibit-P5 on its merits, WP(C) NO. 2895 OF 2022

there cannot be any impediment.

4. After having carefully evaluated the contentions raised in this writ

petition, the submissions made across the Bar and the facts and

circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of at

the admission stage itself by issuing the following directions:

a) There will be a direction to the 2nd respondent to take up, consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext.P5 representation, as per procedure and in adherence to the provisions of law, after affording an opportunity of being heard, either physically or virtually, to the petitioner herein or his authorized representative.

b) Orders, as directed above, shall be passed expeditiously, in any event, within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment.

c) It would be open to the petitioner to produce a copy of the writ petition along with the judgment before the concerned respondent for further action.

This writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE DSV WP(C) NO. 2895 OF 2022

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2895/2022

PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS :

Exhibit P1 PHOTOSTAT COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PLA.4/95450/81 DATED 7.11.1981.

Exhibit P2 COPY OF MEMORANDUM DATED 21.12.1981 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, VIZHINJAM TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P3 COPY OF THE ORDER NO.D.DIS.PLA1-008937/96 DATED 02.02.1996 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

Exhibit P4 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT ON 16.07.2019.

Exhibit P5 COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER SUBMITTED TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT ON 07.05.2021.

RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL