[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Transport Pensioners Friend vs State Of Kerala on 5 January, 2026
Author: T.R.Ravi
Bench: T.R.Ravi
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 18688 OF 2023
PETITIONERS:
1 TRANSPORT PENSIONERS FRIEND
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, K. ASOKAKUMAR,
AGED 65 YEARS, S/O P K KUTTAN,
RESIDING AT KURUPPANTAZHIKOM,
VAKKOM, P.O.,
TRIVANDRUM, PIN - 695308
2 K. ASOKAKUMAR
AGED 65 YEARS
S/O P K KUTTAN, RESIDNG AT KURUPPANTAZHIKOM,
VAKKOM, P.O., TRIVANDRUM,
PIN - 695308
BY ADVS.
SRI.JOSE ABRAHAM
SRI.E.ADITHYAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT
DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
2
2 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,
KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN -
695023
SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR,SPL.GOVT. PLEADER
SRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C).6611/2024 & 13572/2024, THE COURT
ON 05.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6611 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 TRANSPORT RETIRED OFFICERS FORUM (TROF), T.748/11.
REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY,
M.VIJAYAKUMAR, TRANSPORT RETIRED OFFICERS FORUM
(TROF) HEAD OFFICE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 M.VIJAYAKUMAR
AGED 71 YEARS
(RETIRED DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC) GENERAL
SECRETARY, TRANSPORT RETIRED OFFICERS FORUM,
T.748/11, S/O. V. MADHAVAN PILLAI VIGIS COTTAGE,
ELAMDU P.O.,
ELAMADU, KOLLAM DIST.,
PIN - 691533
3 O.P. ANTONY
AGED 68 YEARS
(RETIRED EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KSRTC,)
VICE PRESIDENT, TRANSPORT RETIRED OFFICERS FORUM,
T.748/11, S/O. PAUL, URUMBATH HOUSE,
THAIKKATTUKARA P.O.,
ALWAYE, PIN - 683106
BY ADV SRI.T.P.PRADEEP
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
4
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
2 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM., PIN - 695023
6 THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
BHAVAN, FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR,SPL. GOVT. PLEADER
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.18688/2023 AND 13572/2024 ,
THE COURT ON 05.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAVI
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 15TH POUSHA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 13572 OF 2024
PETITIONERS:
1 K.S.R.T.C. PENSIONERS' ORGANISATION
(REG.NO.T400/80),
REPRESENTED BY P.A.MOHAMMED ASHARAFF, GENERAL
SECRETARY, K.S.R.T.C. PENSION BHAVAN, FORT- KOCHAR
ROAD, THAKARAPARAMBU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695023
2 P MURALEEDHARAN PILLAI
AGED 71 YEARS
S/O PADMANABHA PILLAI, (RETD. INSPECTOR), RAJ
BHAVAN, ATTUVASSERY, MAVADY P.O, PUTHOOR, KOLLAM,
PIN - 691507
BY ADVS.
SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
SMT.THAJUNA MARIA FRANCIS
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695001
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
6
2 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
3 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATION,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
4 THE SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT,
SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
5 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
FORT P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SANTHOSH KUMAR,SPL.GOVT. PLEADER
SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
24.09.2025, ALONG WITH WP(C)NOS.18688/2023 AND 6611/2024, THE
COURT ON 05.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
7
T.R. RAVI, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688 of 2023,
6611 of 2024 & 13572 of 2024
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
The petitioners in all these cases are retired employees of the
KSRTC and their Associations. Their common grievance is that the
pension payable to retired employees of KSRTC is not revised
periodically, in tune with salary revisions. The writ petitions are
hence heard and disposed of together.
2. In W.P.(C) No. 18688 of 2023, the petitioners have
challenged Exhibit P5 order dated 16.5.2023, issued by the 1st
respondent, rejecting the petitioners' request for revision of pension
in line with other Government employees and for reduction of the
existing disparity, on the reason that such relief would impose an
additional financial burden on the KSRTC and the State Government.
3. In W.P.(C) No.13572 of 2024 and W.P.(C) No. 6611 of
2024, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 5.2.2024,
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
produced as Exhibits P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) No.13752 of 2024 and
W.P.(C)No.6611 of 2024 respectively, issued by the 1st respondent,
rejecting the request for revision of pension on the reason that the
KSRTC does not have the financial resources to meet the additional
expenditure.
4. There are no serious disputes regarding the facts. The
KSRTC was formed in 1965. On 27.03.1984, the Government
accepted the request of the employees of KSRTC for payment of
pension as per the Kerala Service Rules. The Government issued
orders on 05.05.1984, directing payment of pension to the
employees who retired on or after 1.4.1984. The petitioners claim
that the KSRTC is bound by the above order to periodically revise
the pension as in the case of the employees of the Government. On
22.5.2012, an agreement was entered into between the
Management and the recognised trade Unions, which was approved
by the Government as per order dated 27.11.2012. The validity of
the agreement was till 28.2.2016. No fresh agreements were
reached till 1.6.2021, on which day another agreement was entered
into. However, the said agreement only addressed the question of
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
revision of the pay, and the revision of the pension was left to be
decided after joint consultation between the KSRTC and the
Secretaries of the Government in the Departments of Finance, Co-
operation, and Transport. A copy of the relevant pages of the draft
agreement has been produced as Ext.P1 in W.P.(C) 13752 of 2024.
Clause XXII of the agreement deals with the payment of pension.
5. Aggrieved by the agreement, the pensioners submitted
representations to the Government and approached this Hon'ble
Court for relief. W.P.(C) Nos. 24566 of 2022, 23966 of 2022 and
15093 of 2017 were disposed of by a common judgment dated
5.8.2022, directing the Government to consider the
recommendations of the KSRTC regarding the revision of pay and
pension to the employees and retired employees, after necessary
deliberations with all the stakeholders and take a final decision. A
similar direction was issued in W.P.(C)No.36042 of 2022 filed by a
similarly situated Association. Pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C)No.
36042 of 2022, the Government passed an order on 16.5.2023
rejecting the request on the grounds of the bad financial position of
KSRTC. Similar orders were issued on 5.2.2024 on the
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
representations filed by other petitioners. It is aggrieved by the
rejection of the request for revision of pension that the petitioners
have filed these writ petitions.
6. Along with W.P.(C) No.6611 of 2024, the petitioners have
produced the order dated 8.7.2022 issued by the KSRTC, revising
the pension payable to persons who retired after 1.1.2022, based on
the revised pay. The petitioners seek similar treatment.
7. The petitioners contend that a pension is not a charity or
burden but a legal obligation. Reliance is placed on the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of
Bihar & Ors. [(1971) 2 SCC 330]. They contend that they are
entitled to be treated like Government pensioners, that the revision
of pension cannot be denied on the grounds of financial constraints,
and that the directions to consider the recommendations of the
KSRTC and to hear the stakeholders have not been complied with.
8. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.
(c)No.18688 of 2023, which has been adopted in the other two writ
petitions. It is stated that on the authorisation given by the
Government to the KSRTC to pay pension under Part III of KSR, the
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
KSRTC pension scheme came into force with effect from 01.04.1984.
It is stated that pension disbursement is governed by the long-term
settlement dated 22.05.2012 and that any decision on pension or its
revision is taken only after consultation with employee unions. The
difficulty expressed in the counter-affidavit for revision of pension is
financial constraints. It is admitted that pursuant to the 2021 pay
revision, KSRTC issued Order No.2115/GL8 (LR)/22/RTC dated
08.07.2022, temporarily fixing the pension of employees retiring on
or after 01.01.2022 based on the revised pay scale under
Memorandum No. PRC/002643/2022 dated 04.02.2022, and that
though in the earlier pay revisions, pension was revised
simultaneously, the pension of existing pensioners was not revised
during the 2021 pay revision.
9. The 2nd respondent has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(c)
No. 18688 of 2023, contending that the writ petition is not
maintainable, as no fundamental right of the petitioners has been
violated. It is contended that the KSRTC pensioners do not have a
legal right to receive a revised pension at par with Government
servants. It is stated that the Government had only agreed to
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
temporarily pay pensions until KSRTC becomes financially stable.
Reliance is placed on the decision in Chairman & MD, KSRTC v.
K.O. Varghese [(2007) 8 SCC 231], wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court upheld the postponement of pay revision benefits
due to KSRTC's weak finances. The judgment in State of Punjab &
Ors. v. Amarnath Goel & Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 754], is relied on
to submit that financial constraints are a legitimate basis for limiting
or staging pension benefits. Reliance is also placed on the judgment
in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Rajesh Chander Sood [(2016)
10 SCC 77] to submit that the Court cannot interfere in such policy
decisions.
10. A reply affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
petitioners, contending that in view of the judgment in W.P.
(C)No.3808 of 2014, the statutory pension to the KSRTC pensioners
should be paid directly by the Government. It is reiterated that there
has been no pension revision for the past 13 years.
11. I have heard the counsel on either side and have
considered in detail the materials placed before the court. The short
question that arises is whether the orders dated 16.5.2023 and
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
5.2.2024 issued by the Government, pursuant to the directions
issued by this Court, are legally justifiable. The contentions of the
petitioners on facts are that neither were the stakeholders heard nor
were the recommendations of the KSRTC considered. They also
contend that the pension is not a bounty and they are entitled to
similar treatment as the Government pensioners since they are also
governed by the provisions of the KSR. It is also contended that the
petitioners cannot be discriminated against in the grant of the
revised pension, based on the date of their retirement. The
Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State contended
that the writ petition is not maintainable and that no fundamental
rights of the petitioners are violated.
12. In All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur,
[(2020) 14 SCC 625], the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that
creating two classes of pensioners based on the date of retirement
cannot be legally justified. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment
are extracted below.
"8. Even otherwise on merits also, we are of the firm
opinion that there is no valid justification to create two
classes viz. one who retired pre-1996 and another who
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
retired post-1996, for the purpose of grant of revised
pension. In our view, such a classification has no nexus with
the object and purpose of grant of benefit of revised
pension. All the pensioners form one class who are entitled
to pension as per the pension rules. Article 14 of the
Constitution of India ensures to all equality before law and
equal protection of laws. At this juncture it is also necessary
to examine the concept of valid classification. A valid
classification is truly a valid discrimination. It is true that
Article 16 of the Constitution of India permits a valid
classification. However, a valid classification must be based
on a just objective. The result to be achieved by the just
objective presupposes the choice of some for differential
consideration/treatment over others. A classification to be
valid must necessarily satisfy two tests. 1stly, the
distinguishing rationale has to be based on a just objective
and secondly, the choice of differentiating one set of persons
from another, must have a reasonable nexus to the
objective sought to be achieved. The test for a valid
classification may be summarised as a distinction based on a
classification founded on an intelligible differentia, which has
a rational relationship with the object sought to be achieved.
Therefore, whenever a cut-off date (as in the present
controversy) is fixed to categorise one set of pensioners for
favourable consideration over others, the twin test for valid
classification or valid discrimination therefore must
necessarily be satisfied.
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
8.1. In the present case, the classification in question has
no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved
while revising the pension. As observed hereinabove, the
object and purpose for revising the pension is due to the
increase in the cost of living. All the pensioners form a single
class and therefore such a classification for the purpose of
grant of revised pension is unreasonable, arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from
amongst similarly situated persons, a cut-off date for
extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits. There
has to be a classification founded on some rational principle
when similarly situated class is differentiated for grant of
any benefit.
8.2. As observed hereinabove, and even it is not in dispute
that as such a decision has been taken by the State
Government to revise the pension keeping in mind the
increase in the cost of living. Increase in the cost of living
would affect all the pensioners irrespective of whether they
have retired pre-1996 or post-1996. As observed
hereinabove, all the pensioners belong to one class.
Therefore, by such a classification/cut-off date the equals
are treated as unequals and therefore such a classification
which has no nexus with the object and purpose of revision
of pension is unreasonable, discriminatory and arbitrary and
therefore the said classification was rightly set aside by the
learned Single Judge of the High Court. At this stage, it is
required to be observed that whenever a new benefit is
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
granted and/or new scheme is introduced, it might be
possible for the State to provide a cut-off date taking into
consideration its financial resources. But the same shall not
be applicable with respect to one and single class of persons,
the benefit to be given to the one class of persons, who are
already otherwise getting the benefits and the question is
with respect to revision."
The above legal position was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the judgment in Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex-
Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 11 SCC
186]. Paragraphs 2 and 38 of the above judgment are extracted
below.
"2. What is involved in this case, is the fixation of date for
the implementation of the Fifth Pay Commission
recommendations, when applied to the respondent
Corporation. That framing a policy concerning fixation of pay
for the salaries of its employees, the extent of its revision,
and even the date of its implementation, are matters of
undoubted exclusive executive decision-making powers.
However, the manner of its implementation, the timing of
applicability of a scheme, and its impact, especially where it
results in exclusion of a certain section of public employees
from the benefit, are subject-matters of scrutiny by the
court, especially, when the complaint is of discrimination and
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. This is one such
case.
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
xxxx xxxx xxxx
38. In the present case, too, there is no denial that the
employees who retired prior to 29.3.2010 discharged the
same duties as in the case of those who did thereafter. The
quality and content of responsibilities assigned to them were
the same. The respondents' decision not to grant arrears
prior to 1-1-2006 cannot be found fault with; however, not
to grant any revision to those who were not in service when
the order implementing the pay revision was issued and
confining it to those, in employment is clearly
discriminatory. The rationale that granting such pay revision
only to existing employees would be to enthuse them to
recover NPA amounts payable to MSFC has no rational nexus
with the object sought to be achieved by the pay revision,
which is to benefit employees and protect them from the rise
in the cost of living."
The above two decisions answer the contention regarding
maintainability. Since the petitioners complain of discrimination,
resulting in exclusion of a section of the pensioners from the benefit
of the revised pension, a writ petition is maintainable. The above
decisions also laid down that there cannot be discrimination based
on the date of retirement. In the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Government orders Ext.P5 produced in
W.P.(C)No.18688 of 2023, and Exts.P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) Nos 13572
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
of 2024 and 6611 of 2024 respectively, are not in accordance with
law and are liable to be set aside.
13. I shall now consider the decisions cited by the counsel on
either side. In Deokinandan (supra), relied on by the counsel for
the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the payment of
pension does not depend upon the discretion of the State, but is
governed by the Rules and a Government servant coming within the
rule is entitled to claim pension. In the cases at hand, there is no
dispute regarding the entitlement to a pension. The issue relates to
the payment of the revised pension. In Amar Nath Goyal (supra),
relied upon by the counsel for the KSRTC, the issue was regarding
the fixation of the cut-off date for payment of an increased quantum
of DCRG. The said principle cannot be applied to the cases at hand.
The question regarding the cut-off date for payment of revised
pension is governed by the principles laid down in All Manipur
Pensioners' Association(supra) and Maharashtra State
Financial Corpn. Ex-Employees Assn. (supra). In K.O.Varghese
(supra), the Apex Court was considering the implementation of the
5th pay commission to the employees of KSRTC, and the Hon'ble
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
Supreme Court held that the KSRTC had the power to decide to
postpone the consideration of the grant of enhanced pensionary
benefits, and the legal principles laid down cannot be applied here.
The said case was not a case of discrimination between the
pensioners. In Rajesh Chander Sood (supra), the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the action of the
Government in withdrawing a pension scheme which was
introduced, not in the capacity as an employer, but as a welfare
measure to employees of Government-controlled bodies. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the court cannot interfere in such
policy matters. In the case at hand, there is already a pension
scheme in place, and the question is regarding the selective
implementation of the revision to a section of the pensioners. Hence,
the decision in Rajesh Chander Sood (supra) cannot be applied to
the facts of these cases. In Society of Retired Forest Officers v.
State of U.P. [2008 (3) KLT 788], the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that the State and Central Governments and Corporations or
public sector must ensure that pension is received in the 1st week of
every month, and the revised DA and pay should be released within
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
two months of the revision. The said decision cannot be treated as a
hard and fast rule in all circumstances. In Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation Etc. v. M. Rajagopalan Nair (Civil
Appeal Nos. 3161-3165/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued
directions regarding the payment of pension arrears as per the 2021
revision, but the said order did not take in the payment of revised
pension to persons like the petitioners herein. In Vijayakumar M.
v. State of Kerala [2022 KHC 937], a Division Bench of this Court
considered the restriction of the benefit of DR to the KSRTC
pensioners to 109% as against the enhanced DA of 112% paid to
the employees and held that the same was discriminatory. It is
submitted that the operation of the above-mentioned judgment has
been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Court need not go
into the above aspect in these writ petitions.
14. In the light of the discussion in the above paragraphs, the
petitioners are entitled to relief. Ext.P5 produced in W.P.
(C)No.18688 of 2023, and Exts.P5 and P9 in W.P.(C) Nos.13572 of
2024 and 6611 of 2024 respectively are quashed. The 1 st
respondent is directed to reconsider the issue regarding the
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
extension of the benefit of the revised pension to the pensioners
who retired before 01.01.2022, in the light of the law laid down in
All Manipur Pensioners Assn. v. State of Manipur (2020) 14
SCC 625 and Maharashtra State Financial Corpn. Ex-
Employees Assn. v. State of Maharashtra [(2023) 11 SCC
186], the order dated 8.7.2022 issued by the KSRTC produced as
Ext.P11 in W.P.(C) No.6611 of 2024, and the observations in this
judgment, and pass orders after hearing the petitioners or their
representatives and the KSRTC, at the earliest, at any rate within 3
months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
T.R. RAVI
JUDGE
dsn
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 18688/2023
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit- P 1 A TRUE COPY OF THE GO (RT) NO. 66/2018/TRANS
DATED 17-02-2018 OF THE TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT
Exhibit - P 2 TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE
JUDGMENT IN WP 24079 OF 2021 DATED 5-08-2022
OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, AT ERNAKULAM
Exhibit -P 3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19-10-
2022 FORWARDED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE
FIRST RESPONDENT
Exhibit- P 4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 36042 OF
2022 DATED 10.11.2022 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH
COURT AT ERNAKULAM.
Exhibit -P 5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.G.O.(RT) NO.182/2023
TRANS DATED 16.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE 1ST
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit- P 6 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGEMENT IN THE W P C
2644/2014 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT,
ERNAKULAM
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6611/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO: 26700/A1/82/TF&P.
DATED 27.03.84 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PLB5.30232/84 DATED
05.05.1984 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAY
REVISION AGREEMENT 2012
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF PAY
REVISION 2021 AGREEMENT
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED
15.02.2022 TO THE HON'BLE CHIEF MINISTER OF
KERALA
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE FORWARDING LETTER DATED
15.02.2022 TO 6TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P7 TRUE COPY OF THE OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
05.08.2022 IN W.P© NO. 24566/2022
Exhibit P8 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2023 IN
IA.NO.1/2023 IN WP(C) NO. 24566 OF 2022
Exhibit P9 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. G.O.(RT)NO.51 /
2024/TRANS OF THE TRANSPORT (A) DEPARTMENT
DATED 05.02.2024
Exhibit P10 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.02.2024 IN
Exhibit P11 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.
2115/GL8(LR)2022/RTC OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT
DATED 08.07.2022
W.P.(C)Nos. 18688/2023,
6611/2024 & 13572/2024
2026:KER:16
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 13572/2024
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF DRAFT
AGREEMENT 2021 EXECUTED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
AND TRADE UNIONS
Exhibit P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.26700/A1/82/TF & P
DATED 27-03-1984 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.PLB5.30232/84 DATED
5/05/1984 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 05/08/2022 IN
W.P(C) 23966/2022
Exhibit P5 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O.
(RT)NO.51/2024/TRANS DATED 05/02/2024 ISSUED
BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
Exhibit P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.2115/GL8(LR)2022/RTC
DATED 08/07/2022 ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT
