Kerala High Court
Saji G vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
TH
FRIDAY, THE 4 DAY OF MARCH 2022 / 13TH PHALGUNA, 1943
WP(C) NO. 6956 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
1 SAJI G
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O GOPI, SAJI BHAVAN, KULAPPADA P O, ARYANAD,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695542,
DRIVER GRADE-2, CENTRAL DEPOT,
KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 SIBI B.
AGED 39 YEARS
S/O BABU A,
CHARUVILA KUNNEL HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY, ANAYARA P O,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695029,
DRIVER GRADE-2, CENTRAL DEPOT,
KSRTC, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS.
SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL
ASWATHY BABU
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION KSRTC
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
2 CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT P O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL DEPOT,
THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023.
BY SRI. DEEPU THANKAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 04.03.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 6956 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioners herein are working as Driver Gr-II in the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC), Central Depot at
Thiruvananthapuram. They have approached this Court seeking directions
to the respondents to finalise the options of Drivers to opt the schedule
for driving SCANIA Buses based on the seniority in the training and not on
the service seniority among the trained drivers.
2. Sri. Sajeevkumar K. Gopal, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioners would rely on the judgment rendered by this Court on
11.08.2016 in W.P.(C.) No. 25230 of 2016 and also the judgment in
W.P.(C.) No. 31682 of 2018 dated 19.12.2019 and it is submitted that this
Court, after considering the entire aspects, had ordered to draw the list of
drivers to drive Volvo buses in accordance with the seniority secured by
them and in accordance with the training undergone.
3. Sri. Deepu Thankan, the learned standing counsel appearing for
the respondents submits that they have been following the directions
issued by this Court in the judgments referred to by the learned counsel
and the grievance expressed by the petitioners in this writ petition is
without any basis.
WP(C) NO. 6956 OF 2022
4. I have considered the submissions advanced. While disposing of
W.P.(C.) No. 25230 of 2016, this Court had considered the issue and
ordered as follows:
"4. The sole question to be considered is whether any interference
is required in Ext.P3 order passed by the 2 nd respondent dated
19.07.2016. So far as the issue with respect to directions contained in
Ext.P1 judgment is concerned, a list shall be drawn by the Corporation
fixing the seniority in accordance with the training undergone for driving
Volvo Buses. It is also clear that, the seniority in the said list was accorded
on the basis of the training undergone irrespective of the seniority in
service. On a perusal of Ext.P1 judgment, it is categoric and clear that what
this Court intended was that the W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016 4 list is to be
drawn by providing seniority to drive Volvo buses giving preference to those
drivers underwent training to drive Volvo buses irrespective of undergoing
the same at the office of the manufacturer in Bangalore or at Depot level.
5. Now, on a perusal of Ext.P3, what is discernible is that, 2 nd
respondent has passed an order directing that irrespective of the seniority
in training undergone, the seniority in the depot level is to be provided,
irrespective of the seniority in the training undergoing subsequently. So
also, the 2 nd direction contained in Ext.P3 is that, while assigning duty to
the drivers for driving Volvo Buses under JNNRUM project, depot-wise
seniority and not training-wise seniority will be taken as priority. In my
considered opinion, the said two directives contained in Ext.P3 is in
violation of the directives contained in Ext.P1 judgment, and considered in
Ext.P2 order of the Division Bench while dismissing a leave petition filed by
third parties. That apart, it is clearly held in Ext.P1 judgment and in Ext.P2
order that, seniority fixed on the basis of the training undergone in no
manner will affect the seniority of the drivers in the service. Therefore, so
far as the service benefits are concerned, pursuant to the list drawn by the
Corporation in W.P.(C) No.25230 of 2016 5 terms of Ext.P1 cannot have any
WP(C) NO. 6956 OF 2022
manner of consequence affecting their seniority in service.
6. Taking into account the respective submissions and reckoning the
circumstances from Ext.P3, I am of the considered opinion that, Ext.P3 is
liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P3 to the extent it violates the
directives contained in Ext.P1 judgment to the effect that depot-wise
seniority and not training-wise seniority will be taken as priority, is set
aside.
7. Therefore, there will be a direction to the respondents 1 and 2 to
abide by the directives contained in Ext.P1 judgment and draw the list of
drivers to drive Volvo buses in accordance with seniority secured by them,
in accordance with the training undergone."
In that view of the matter, with a direction to the respondents to
act in terms of the judgment in W.P.(C.) No. 25230 of 2016 dated
11.08.2016, this writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
avs
WP(C) NO. 6956 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6956/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.31682 OF
2018 DATED 19.12.2019.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE MULTI AXLE DRIVERS TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL UNIT
TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2022.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY
THE MULTI AXLE DRIVERS TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL UNIT
TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23.02.2022.
