M.Surendran vs The Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6171 Ker

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                  PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
          Wednesday, the 1st day of June 2022 / 11th Jyaishta, 1944
                           WP(C) NO. 20969 OF 2021
PETITIONER:

     M.SURENDRAN, AGED 57 YEARS, S/O.LATE MADHAVAN, DRIVER RTD, KSRTC
     THIRUVALLA DEPOT, RESIDING AT THATTAVAZHI KIZHAKKATHIL, NADAKKAVU,
     PERINGALA P.O., KAYAKULAM, ALAPPUZHA 650 559

RESPONDENT:

  1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS
     MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
     FORT, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA, PIN - 695 023
  2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT
     OFFICER, KSRTC, THIRUVALLA, PIN-689101
  3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, GOVT. TDB MEDICAL COLLEGE, ALAPPUZHA - 688 005

     Writ petition (civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances
stated in the affidavit filed along with the WP(C) the High Court be
pleased to direct the respondents 1 & 2 to disburse the arrears of
petitioner's monthly pension due from and also his DCRG and other
pensionary benefits including commuted value forthwith pending disposal of
the Writ Petition.
     This petition again coming on for admission upon perusing the
petition and the affidavit filed in support of WP(C) and this Court's
order dated 02.02.2022 and upon hearing the arguments of
SRI.R.RAJASEKHARAN PILLAI, Advocate for the petitioner, SRI.DEEPU THANKAN,
STANDING COUNSEL for R1 and of GOVERNMENT PLEADER, the court passed the
following:
                           DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, J.
                  ================================
                          W.P. (C)No.20969 of 2021
                  ================================
                         Dated this the 1st day of June, 2022

                                    ORDER

Smt.Resmi Thomas - learned Government Pleader affirms that

an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses of the petitioner

was remitted by the 2nd respondent directly to the 3rd respondent -

Hospital. She added that, in fact, there was an excess payment and

the same has been remitted by the 3 rd respondent to the 2 nd

respondent directly thereafter.

2. If that be so, I fail to understand how the KSRTC now

takes a stand that they have not received the bills from the petitioner

for utilization of the amounts, particularly when he asserts that it is

the duty of the Hospital to have forwarded the same directly to the

2nd respondent.

3. The pleadings on record by the KSRTC are silent on this.

I therefore, adjourn this matter to be called on 08.06.2022 for

the KSRTC to answer this issue, so that this Court can then deliver a

final judgment.

Sd/-

                                            DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
     rp                                            JUDGE




01-06-2022                    /True Copy/                         Assistant Registrar