Kerala High Court
Pradeep Kumar P vs Kerala State Road Transport ... on 3 April, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 1192 OF 2018
PETITIONER/S:
1 PRADEEP KUMAR P
AZHICHIRA HOUSE, THARAKKAN CHALLA,MANNIYODE, CHITTUR,
PALAKKAD,CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,CHITTUR DEPOT., PALAKKAD.
2 SHAIK MUJEEB M.
A.N.MANZIL, PATTANI STREET,TATTAMANGALAM P.O.,
PALAKKAD,CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,CHITTUR DEPOT., PALAKKAD.
3 RAMESH V.
CHIRAKODE HOUSE, VERKOLI P.O.,PULPULLI, PALAKKAD,
CONDUCTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
CHITTUR DEPOT., PALAKKAD.
4 BALAKRISHNAN M.
PEZHAZMKADU, KALAPPETTI P.O., KUZHALMANNAM,
PALAKKAD, CONDUCTOR,KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION,CHITTUR DEPOT.
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.S.SWATHI KUMAR
SMT.ANITHA RAVINDRAN
SRI.HARISANKAR N UNNI
SMT.T.RESHMA
SMT.S.SIKKY
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
W.P. (C) No.1192 of 2018 2
2 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, EAST FORT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 003.
3 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
TRANSPORT OFFICE, PALAKKAD - 670 001.
BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No.1192 of 2018 3
EASWARAN S. , J.
-------------------------
W.P. (C) No.1192 of 2018
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 3rd day of April 2024
JUDGMENT
The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
i) declare that the petitioners are legally entitled to get their
service in the 1st respondent from 2005 to 22.12.2011
regularized and their seniority re-fixed, counting this service
also and the 1st respondent is statutorily and legally bound to
do so, grant them seniority accordingly and consequent
promotions, increments etc;
ii) Issue a writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ,
order or direction commanding and compelling the 1st
respondent to count petitioner's 6 years' service from 2005 till
22/12/2011 as regular service and grand them seniority and
other consequential benefits in the service of 1st respondent;
2. The petitioners contend that they were working as empanelled
conductors in the Chittoor Sub Depot of the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation (For short, the KSRTC) in Palakkad District. The
grievance voiced in the present writ petition is that when petitioners
were included in 2001 rank list they have approached this Court and
pursuant to the directions of this Court, the petitioners were appointed
in service. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that the period
during which they worked as reserved conductors is not taken into
consideration by the KSRTC for the seniority purpose. Therefore the
period from 2005 to 22.12.2011 is now claimed by the petitioners to
be counted for the purpose of regular service.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed by the learned counsel
appearing for respondents 1 to 3 along with a copy of G.O.(MS)
No.77/2011/Tran. Dated 22.12.2011, in which it is stated that the
Government have carefully examined the matter and are pleased to
accord sanction to regularize the service of 912 provisional conductors
in KSRTC who were engaged from unadvised list of Kerala Public
Service Commission (KPSC) 2001.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a Larger
Bench decision of this Court in Francis vs. KSRTC [2015 (1) KLT
1051]. Paragraph 4 of the said judgment shows the pointed issue
raised before this Court. A specific question was raised before the
Larger Bench of this Court that whether the provisional service of the
petitioners therein could be taken for consideration for the purpose of
counting seniority and pensionary benefits. The question was
answered in paragraph No.49 of the said judgment wherein it was
specifically found that the petitioners therein were entitled to reckon
their provisional period of service prior to the regular appointment on
the advise of KPSC for the purpose of pension.
5. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents,
submitted that, against the Larger Bench decision in K.L. Francis
(Supra), the respondent Corporation filed Civil Appeal Nos.3161-3165
of 2019 and Civil Appeal Nos.11338-11339 of 2016 before the
Honourable Supreme Court, and the Honourable Supreme Court had
accepted the contentions raised by the Corporation. Copies of the
orders in Civil Appeal Nos.3161-3165 of 2019 and Civil Appeal
Nos.11338-11339 of 2016 are produced before this Court as
Annexures R1(b) and R1(c).
6. A perusal of the orders passed by the Apex Court in the Civil
Appeals as referred above makes it clear that the directions issued by
the Larger Bench of this Court in Francis (Supra) has been
substantially varied. The concluding portion of the orders of the Apex
Court in the Civil Appeals show that liberty was granted to the
employees to make a representation before the State Government in
respect of giving notional benefits retrospectively for the period they
have rendered service on a daily wage basis. When the Apex Court has
specifically held that it was not inclined to uphold the portion of the
impugned order of the learned Single Judge which was assailed by the
K.S.R.T.C, I am of the considered view that the contention of the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that they are entitled for
the benefit of the directions issued by the Larger Bench of this Court in
Francis (Supra) cannot be accepted.
Therefore, I dispose of the writ petition respectfully following the
orders of the Honourable Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.3161-
3165 of 2019 and Civil Appeal Nos.11338-11339 of 2016 by giving
liberty to the petitioners to make a representation before the State
Government in respect of counting the period of service rendered by
them on daily wage basis for notional benefits retrospectively, but,
making it clear that this will not give rise to another round of litigation.
There will be no order as to costs.
Sd/-
EASWARAN S.
JUDGE
NS
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 1192/2018
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P1-699/05/PLKD
DATED 15.07.2005 ISSUED TO THE 1ST
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P1-699/05/PLKD
DATED 15.07.2005 ISSUED TO THE 2ND
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P3. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.P1-699/05/PLKD
DATED 15.07.2005 ISSUED TO THE 4TH
PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P4. TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT NO.14836 DATED
25.07.2005 ISSUED TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P5. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL12/025739/2008
DATED 07.04.2012 TO THE 1ST PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P6. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL12/025739/2008
DATED 07.04.2012 TO THE 2ND PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P7. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL12/025739/2008
DATED 07.04.2012 TO THE 3RD PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P8. TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PL12/025739/2008
DATED 07.04.2012 TO THE 4TH PETITIONER.
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R-1(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT
IN C.A. 3161-3165/2019 DATED 02/03/2022
Annexure R-1(C) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APEX COURT
IN C.A. 11338-11339/2016 DATED 09/03/2022
