Kerala High Court
Biju Augustine vs The Kerala State Road Transport ... on 31 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
TUESDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2022 / 10TH JYAISHTA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
PETITIONER:
BIJU AUGUSTINE.,
AGED 50 YEARS
S/O. AUGUSTINE, CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA DEPOT - 685581, (RESIDING AT
KAVALAKATTU HOUSE, VELLIAMATTOM.P.O., KURUTHIKKALAM - 685 588).
BY ADV K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023:
3 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION),
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
4 THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (PAY FIXATION CELL),
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST
FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 023.
5 THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA DEPOT - 685
581.
6 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
MUVATTUPUZHA DEPOT - 686 661.
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI DEEPU THANKAN - SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31.05.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
2
JUDGMENT
The petitioner impugns Ext.P8 Memorandum issued to him by
the Executive Director of the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation (KSRTC), whereby, his fixation of pay has been finalized
in a particular manner. The petitioner says that he was subjected to
certain punishments on 02.12.2009 and 11.01.2010 respectively and
that even though this factum is admitted, instead of effecting it within
time, same were put into force only on 10.10.2017. He says that, it is,
therefore that, in Ext.P8 Memorandum, his pay has been fixed
erroneously and that this is in violation of Part I of the Kerala Service
Rules (KSR). He then asserts that Ext.P8 cannot be sustained in law at
all because the KSRTC themselves have issued Ext.P3 Memorandum
and that the contents of the former goes contrary to the prescriptions
in the latter.
2. The petitioner thus, prays that Ext.P8 be quashed and the
competent respondent be directed to reconsider the matter, so as to
grant him the denied increments and benefits of salary without any
further delay.
3. The afore submissions of Sri.K.P.Justine - learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner, were refuted by Sri.Deepu Thankan -
learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, who initially sought time to
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
file counter pleadings, but they contended that, as is evident from
Ext.P8, the petitioner's fixation of pay has been done strictly in the
manner as is postulated in law. He submitted that since the petitioner
was on leave, as has been recorded in Ext.P8, his punishments and
the recovery ordered against him could not be effected, which had led
to the same being deferred to a future date. He, therefore, prayed
that this writ petition be dismissed.
4. I must say that I cannot find full force with the afore
explanation offered by Sri.Deepu Thankan because there is nothing
on record to show that the punishments of the petitioner had been
ordered to be deferred at the time when it was issued. Of course, it
may be true that petitioner was on leave and that the KSRTC was
finding it difficult to implement their orders of imposing punishments
on him, but it would not, however, be justified for them to fix his pay
scale in the manner as has been done in Ext.P8, unless the reasons for
the same are specifically ordered and settled after hearing him.
5. I am persuaded to this view also because the impact of
Ext.P8, prima facie, appears to be two folded on the petitioner,
because he has already been imposed with punishments and
subsequently, his pay scale appears to have been settled in such a
manner to cause him some prejudice.
6. I am, therefore, of the firm view that the entire matter will
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
require to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the KSRTC,
taking note of the specific contentions of the petitioner and after
affording him an opportunity of being heard, so that his allegations
regarding fixation of pay can be looked into and decided in a manner
as is apposite in law.
Resultantly and for the reasons above, but clarifying that I have
not held Ext.P8 to be in error affirmatively, I order this writ petition
and set aside the said order; with a consequential direction to the
competent Authority of the KSRTC to reconsider the matter, after
affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, adverting
specifically to Ext.P3 Memorandum; thus culminating in an
appropriate order and necessary action thereon, as expeditiously as is
possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a
copy of this judgment.
I also, make it clear that I have not considered the merits of the
petitioner's contentions finally and that they are left to be decided
appropriately by the competent Authority in terms of the afore
directions, for which purpose, all rival contentions are left open.
sd/-
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
JUDGE
rp
WP(C) NO. 16533 OF 2022
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16533/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE DUTY PASS ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER.
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.16 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PLE4-006811/ 98
DATED 3.10.1998.
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE AUDIT NOTE AS RECORDED IN PAGE
NO.77 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.79 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P5 (A) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.80 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.81 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P6 (A) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.82 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P6 (B) TRUE COPY OF PAGE NO.83 OF THE SERVICE BOOK.
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 2.10.2021.
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PL7/ 002476/ 2021
DATED 23.11.2021.
