P. Rajan vs Kerala State Road Transport ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 10107 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
          THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN
   THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022 / 24TH BHADRA, 1944
                       WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          P. RAJAN, AGED 58 YEARS, S/O. NAVUTTY,
          DRIVER GRADE I (RETIRED), KSRTC SUB DEPOT,
          PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM 679 322,
          RESIDING AT VALIYARAKUNDIL HOUSE,
          P.O. KUZHIMANNA, MALAPPURAM - 673 641.

          BY ADVS.KALEESWARAM RAJ
          SMT.MAITREYI SACHIDANANDA HEGDE


RESPONDENTS:

    1     KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    2     CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
          KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
          TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORTE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

    3     THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
          K.S.R.T.C. OFFICE, PERINTHALMANNA, MALAPPURAM-679 322.

          BY ADV.SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
15.09.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020
                                    -2-

                               JUDGMENT

The petitioner, who retired on attaining the age

of superannuation from the services of the Kerala

State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) as a Driver,

impugns Ext.P5 order issued by its Managing Director,

whereby, his request for pension has been rejected

saying that he does not have the minimum qualifying

service of 10 years.

2. The petitioner says that, while in service,

he was inflicted with various illnesses and that he

had applied for leave on the strength of Medical

Certificates, but that such periods were unfairly

treated only as Leave Without Allowances (LWA); based

on which, the KSRTC now takes the stand that he does

not have 10 year qualifying service. He then

alternatively argues that, even if the stand of the

KSRTC, as reflected in Ext.P5, is found to be correct,

he is entitled to ex gratia pension because, Ext.P6

Wage Agreement of the year 2012 renders it perspicuous

that even a person with 9 or 8 years service is WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020

entitled to such benefit. He asserts that even if the

period - when the KSRTC says he was on Leave Without

Allowances - is excluded from the purview of his

service, he would still be entitled to at least ex

gratia payment because he has served more than 9

years. He thus prays that Ext.P5 be set aside and the

KSRTC be directed to grant him either full pension or

ex gratia pension, on the strength of Ext.P6.

3. The afore submissions of Smt.Thulasi K.Raj -

learned counsel for the petitioner, were refuted by

Smt.Ummul Fida - learned counsel, representing the

learned Standing Counsel for the KSRTC, saying that

petitioner has never challenged the orders granting

him LWA until this writ petition was filed; and that

the plea that he was absent on account of medical

reasons cannot now be countenanced.

4. Smt.Ummul Fida then added that, in any event,

ex gratia pension cannot be granted to the petitioner,

because Ext.P6 is not meant for persons like him, but

for those who could not obtain their minimum

qualifying service for no fault of theirs. She thus WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020

prays that this writ petition be dismissed.

5. When I evaluate the afore rival submissions,

it is clear that petitioner has challenged not merely

Ext.P5, but also Exts.P1 and P2, to the extent to

which the period availed by him as leave has been

treated only as LWA and not on medical grounds. His

specific contention is that he has submitted Medical

Certificates in support of his plea and therefore,

that said period ought to have been construed only as

"LWA on medical grounds", which would then enure to

him the benefit of statutory pension.

6. As an alternative plea, as I have already

recorded above, the petitioner asserts that Ext.P6

Wage Agreement would make him entitled to at least ex

gratia pension, because he has, admittedly, completed

9 years of service.

7. However, when one examines Ext.P5, it is

luculent that the Managing Director of the KSRTC has

rejected the petitioner's plea without entering into

the merits of Exts.P1 and P2 and merely saying that

since he had availed LWA, Ext.P6 Wage Agreement could WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020

not apply to him. However, no reasons have been stated

therein, though Smt.Ummul Fida - learned counsel, says

that the challenge to Exts.P1 and P2 had already been

repelled through a judicial process earlier. In the

absence of any such information being available from

Ext.P5, I am certain that entire matter will require

to be reconsidered by the competent Authority of the

KSRTC.

Resultantly, I order this writ petition and set

aside Ext.P5; with a consequential direction to the

Managing Director of the KSRTC to reconsider the claim

of the petitioner, adverting to his plea against

Exts.P1 and P2 also and after verifying whether Ext.P6

Wage Agreement would, in any manner, enure to his

benefit. This shall be done after affording the

petitioner an opportunity of being heard and the

resultant order shall be issued to him within a period

of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of

this judgment.

I, however, make it clear that I have not entered

into the merits of Exts.P1 and P2 in this judgment; WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020

and that if the challenge of the petitioner against

such has already been concluded, then it will

certainly be available to the Managing Director of the

KSRTC to say so in his resultant order.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE akv WP(C) NO. 20123 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 20123/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. VNE/2/022184/12 DATED 22.03.2013, ISSUED BY THE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 13.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELIEVING, MEMO ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 02.12.2019 IN WPC NO. 32570/2019.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.

PA7/016347/18 DATED 21.07.2020 ISSUED BY THE PENSION AND AUDIT SECTION OF THE 1T RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE BY LATERAL AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND ITS EMPLOYEES.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O. (P) 1851/99/FIN.

DATED 18.09.1999.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF G.O. (P) 87/2011/FIN DATED 28.02.2011.

RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS : NIL.

//TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE