Kerala High Court
Chairman & Managing Director, Kerala ... vs S.Dathan on 4 August, 2025
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
1
2025:KER:57363
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 13TH SRAVANA, 1947
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.10.2017 IN RP NO.392 OF 2017 AND JUDGMENT DATED
09.11.2016 IN W.P.(C) NO.33370/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
APPELLANT/S:
1 CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 039.
2 THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,KOTTARAKARA DEPOT,
KOTTARAKKARA.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
RESPONDENT/S:
S.DATHAN
THAMARASSERY, T.K.M.C.P.O., KARIKODE,KOLLAM, PIN-691 005,(DRIVER,
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION),KOTTARAKKARA DEPOT,
KOTTARAKKARA.)
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2
2025:KER:57363
BY ADV SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING RESERVED ON 30.07.2025, THE COURT ON 04.08.2025
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
3
2025:KER:57363
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
The present intra-Court appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala
High Court Act assails the order dated 04.10.2017 passed in R.P.
No.392/2017 which affirms the judgment passed in W.P.(C)
No.33370/2016 dated 09.11.2016 whereby the learned Single Judge
allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
2. The appellants are the first and second respondents in the
writ petition and the review petitioners in the Review Petition. The
respondent herein was the petitioner.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was an
empanelled conductor in the service of the Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation (for short, 'Corporation'), initially for the period from
23.02.1997 to 21.07.2000 and later from 2006 to 2011. Therefore, he is
entitled for regularisation in the service of the Corporation in terms of
Ext.P11 order issued by the Government. The claim of the respondent
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
was rejected by the Corporation as per Ext.P1 on the ground that the
respondent do not possess 10 years service, which is a condition
precedent for claiming regularisation in terms of Ext.P11 order. Being
aggrieved the respondent filed the writ petition challenging Ext.P1
order.
3.1 The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by
setting aside Ext.P1 and directed the appellants to regularise the
service of the respondent in accordance with Ext.P11 Government
Order, within a period two months.
3.2 Being aggrieved, the appellants - Corporation filed Review
Petition, R.P. No.392/2017, challenging the judgment passed in W.P.(C)
No.33370/2016. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Review Petition
as not maintainable.
3.3 The appellants being aggrieved filed the present Writ
Appeal.
4. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellants clearly stated
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
that according to the Government Order [Ext.P11] dated 22.12.2011, the
respondent was eligible to be regularised. However, the said
Government Order was modified by another Government Order dated
21.11.2013, clarifying on the prevalence of the duty clause of 120 days
as per the Government Order dated 22.12.2011, incorporating the
condition of minimum 120 days' duty per year in condition No.7 of the
Government Order.
4.1 Admittedly, the respondent had not completed 10 years of
service having 120 days' attendance in a particular year. Thereafter,
the Government Order dated 22.11.2013 was challenged in W.P.(C) No.
5113/2013, which was allowed. Being aggrieved, the appellant -
Corporation filed Writ Appeal, W.A. No.340/2014 and connected
appeals which was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.03.2014. The
appellants - Corporation, thereafter, filed Civil Appeal Nos.4435-
4438/2017 challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge as
well as the appellate order. The Apex Court on 24.03.2017 passed the
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
following Order:
"Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per the Government Order
dated 21.11.2013, the employees seeking regularisation are required to
have 120 days of minimum period of service in a year. The High Court
has held that this requirement cannot be applied to persons already
working prior to the date of the said order. We are unable to uphold
the view of the High Court. Before granting regularisation, appropriate
conditions for regularisation can be laid down even for employees
already working. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order.
The appeals are allowed accordingly."
4.2 In view of the order of the Apex Court, the Government
Order dated 21.11.2013 stood restored. Meaning thereby, the condition
of working 120 days a year became mandatory.
5. As per the Ext.R1(a) Enquiry Report dated 23.02.2016, the
respondent never worked for 120 days in each year for a period of 10
years. Thereafter, the respondent attained the age of superannuation
during the pendency of this Writ Appeal.
6. Learned Counsel for the appellants further contended that
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
Ext.R1(a) as well as the modified Government Order dated 21.11.2013
were not available before the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that the respondent is
eligible for regularisation. However, in view of the Apex Court order
dated 24.03.2017, the respondent would not be eligible for
regularisation. Thus, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge
deserves to be set aside and the writ petition be dismissed.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent vehemently
opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and
submitted that the learned Single Judge has not committed any error
so as to interfere with the judgment. He further contended that the
other similarly situated employees were regularised, however, the
respondent alone was left out. In such a situation the principle of
parity would apply and the respondent would also be entitled for
regularisation and the Writ Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. Heard Sri. Deepu Thankan, learned Standing Counsel for the
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
appellants - Corporation and Sri. R.Pushpangathan Pillai learned
Counsel for the respondent.
9. It is not in dispute that the Government Order [Ext.P11]
dated 22.12.2011 stands modified/superseded by Government Order
dated 21.11.2013, which has been produced before this Court. The said
Government Order clarifies the condition of minimum 120 days' duty
per year, incorporated in sub para (5) of para XL VI in the Government
Order, as a requisite qualification to be enumerated as one among
other qualifications stipulated in condition No.7 of the Government
Order.
9.1 Admittedly, the respondent was working with one of the
Ministers for six years. Therefore, he has not completed 10 years of
service, with 120 days' attendance each year. In view of the aforesaid,
the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be
countenanced. Accordingly, the same is hereby setaside. As a
consequence, the writ petition stands dismissed.
WA NO. 2181 OF 2017
2025:KER:57363
The Writ Appeal stands allowed and W.P.(C) No.33370/2016
stands dismissed. All Interlocutory Applications as regards interim
matters stand closed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
JUDGE
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
jjj
