Cont.Case© No.1627 of 2025
1
2026:KER:5667
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 7TH MAGHA, 1947
CON.CASE(C) NO. 1627 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.08.2022 IN WP(C) NO.11021 OF
2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 7, 10, 11, 13 TO 19:
1 SUDHEER RAM S
AGED 46 YEARS
S/O. M. SIVARAMAKRISHNAN, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD-670 645, RESIDING AT SREE SADAN, MANANTHAVADY,
WAYANAD
2 SUJA T.K
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.VINOD V.K, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVALLA,
PATHANAMTHITTA -689 101, RESIDING AT V.T.P.HOUSE,
KARAKKAD P.O. CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 689504
3 JAYASREE K.R
AGED 48 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN K.K, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVALLA, PATHANAMTHITTA
-689 101, RESIDING AT KAVAALTHARAYIL, PALLICKAL P.O.
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690503
4 PRAMEELA KUMARI A
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.HARISH KUMAR P. SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALA, KOTTAYAM -686 574,
RESIDING AT AYKKARA, KUDAMALOOR P.O. KOTTAYAM, PIN -
686017
5 PRAMEELA KURUP V
AGED 47 YEARS
Cont.Case© No.1627 of 2025
2
2026:KER:5667
W/O.RAJKUMAR K, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARUNAGAPALLY, KOLLAM -690 518,
RESIDING AT THIRUVONAM, NANGIARKULANGARA, ALAPPUZHA,
PIN - 690513
6 NEENA T.M.
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.P.P.ROY, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI-685584
RESIDING AT PARIYOROTH (H) THIRUGANIYAR P.O.
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682308
7 BINDU E.P
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.G.SASIKUMARAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
PAPPANAMCODE,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 018. RESIDING AT
T.C 18/1860(B), THIRUVATHIRA, TRIVANDRUM
8 SUNIL KUMAR V
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.N.VASUDEVAN, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOLLAM -691 001, RESIDING AT
SUNIL BHAVAN, KANNANKULANGARA NORTH, CHETTIKULANGARA
P.O. MAVELIKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690106
9 RAJAKSHI P.P
AGED 46 YEARS
W/O.RADHAKRISHNAN K.P, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THAMARASSERRY, KOZHIKODE-
673 573, RESIDING AT KANDAMBALATH (H),
P.O.THAMARASSERI, KOZHIKODE
10 MAHESWARI M
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CENTRAL -695
001, RESIDING AT KUNNUKUZHY, VANCHIYOOR P.O..
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695036
11 GEORGE K.JOSE
AGED 48 YEARS
S/O.JOSE K.K, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, EDAPPAL,
MALAPPURAM -679 571 RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINKAL (H),
P.O.NADATHARA, J.P.NAGAR, THRISSUR, PIN - 680751
Cont.Case© No.1627 of 2025
3
2026:KER:5667
12 PREMAKUMARI K.G
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O.BALACHANDRAN NAIR, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PATHANAPURAM, KOLLAM-
689695 RESIDING AT GOURI COTTAGE, MURINJAKAL P.O.,
KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689693
13 THULASI T
AGED 49 YEARS
W/O.ANIL KUMAR K.S(LATE), SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE
ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NEDUMANGAD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -695 541 RESIDING AT SREE NILAYAM,
VPS-292, VATTAVILA, THIRUMALA P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN - 695006
14 NIMSY MATHEW
AGED 50 YEARS
W/O.EBBY M.PAUL, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM-686
691, RESIDING AT MONEKKATTU HOUSE, VAIKKARA,
ERNAKULAM, PIN - 683549
15 SUNITHA KURIAN
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.KURIAN JOHN, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, CHENGANNUR, ALAPPUZHA-689 121,
RESIDING AT CHARIVUPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAYARMOOL,
PATHANAMTHITTA, PIN - 689532
16 BINDU K.G
AGED 47 YEARS
W/O.ACHUTHANKUTTY K, SUPERINTENDENT, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, PALAKKAD -678 001, RESIDING AT
GANGOTHRI, PALLIKURUP P.O MANNARKKAD,
PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582
BY ADVS.
SHRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ
KUM.THULASI K. RAJ
SMT.CHINNU MARIA ANTONY
SMT.APARNA NARAYAN MENON
Cont.Case© No.1627 of 2025
4
2026:KER:5667
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2:
1 SRI. BIJU PRABHAKAR
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
MANAGING DIRECTOR KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVANA, FORT
P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
2 SHRI. G.P PRADEEP KUMAR
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION)-IN-CHARGE, KERALA
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT
BHAVANA,FORT P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023
3 SRI. DR. P.S PRAMOJ SHANKAR IOFS,
AGE AND FATHER'S NAME ARE NOT KNOWN TO THE
PETITIONERS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT
P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695023. IS IMPLEADED AS PER
ORDER DATED 05.08.25 IN IA 01/25 IN COC
BY ADV SHRI.DEEPU THANKAN, SC, KSRTC
THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 27.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Cont.Case© No.1627 of 2025
5
2026:KER:5667
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 27th day of January, 2026
1. This Contempt Case is filed by Petitioner Nos.1 to 7, 10, 11 and
13 to 19 in W.P.(C) No.11021 of 2016, which was disposed of
by this Court as per Annexure I judgment dated 11.08.2022.
2. W.P.(C) No.11021 of 2016 was filed by the Petitioners who are
Superintendents in KSRTC, challenging Ext.P28 therein,
rejecting their request for stepping up of their Pay Scale on par
with that of the 3rd Respondent therein, who is also working as
a Superintendent and junior to them. The contention of the
petitioners was that the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition
happened to draw Higher Scale of Pay than the Petitioners as
the Petitioners were promoted directly from the post of Upper
Division Clerk (Selection Grade) ['UDC (SG)', for short] to the
post of Superintendents for want of qualified employees in the
Grades of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant and the 3rd
2026:KER:5667
Respondent in the Writ Petition was promoted to the post of
Special Assistant/Senior Assistant before being promoted to
the post of Superintendent and she got one increment in the
post of the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant. In
Annexure I, this Court held that when all the conditions
encompassed in Ruling No.1, under Rule 28A of Part I of the
Kerala Service Rules ('KSR', for short) are satisfied, then the
Scales of Pay of the petitioners ought to have been fixed in the
manner mandated therein; that the petitioners were directly
promoted from UDC (SG) to the post of Superintendents solely
because there was no other person available in the category of
Special Assistant/Senior Assistant at the relevant time and it
was not on account of any request from them for promotion,
and therefore, their pay ought to have been protected, at least
qua their junior. It is further held that this Court cannot find in
favour of the stand taken by the KSRTC that the 3rd
2026:KER:5667
Respondent in the Writ Petition is entitled to the Pay Scale fixed
for the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant also, while
reckoning her promotion to the post of Superintendent, since
she worked in the post of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant
also. This Court set aside Ext.P28 therein with a consequential
direction to the Competent Authority of the KSRTC to
reconsider the matter, after affording an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioners and the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition,
adverting to the impact of Rule 28A of Part I KSR - especially
Ruling No.1 thereunder, culminating in an appropriate new
order and necessary action, and depending upon the result of
the afore exercise, and if the KSRTC is to find that petitioners
are entitled to a higher Scale of Pay, then necessary action
shall be taken to fix it, at least on par with the 3rd respondent in
the Writ Petition and to disburse the eligible amounts to them.
2026:KER:5667
3. The Petitioners had filed Con.Case(C) No.867/2023 before this
Hon'ble Court earlier, and thereupon, the Respondent No.2
passed an Order dated 31.03.2023 rejecting the claim of the
Petitioners. Con.Case(C) No.867/2023 was disposed of by this
Court as per Annexure III judgment dated 19.06.2023, holding
that the Order dated 31.03.2023 does not appear to be in
adherence to the spirit or tenor of the Annexure I judgment and
closing the Contempt Case recording the submission of the
learned Counsel for the Respondents that the Order dated
31.03.2023 will be withdrawn and a fresh order will be issued
after hearing the petitioners not later than one month from the
date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. This Court had given
liberty to the Petitioners to seek a rehearing of the Contempt
Case in the event the aforesaid undertaking is violated or for
any other valid reason, for which purpose all the contentions
are left open.
2026:KER:5667
4. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 passed the Annexure IV
Order dated 17.08.2023 again rejecting the claim of the
Petitioners. The Petitioners filed I.A.No.1/2023 in Con.Case(C)
No.867/2023 to reopen the Contempt Case, and this Court
closed the said Application as per Annexure V Order dated
13.02.2025 recording the submission of the Counsel for the
Respondents that the Annexure IV Order would be withdrawn
and a fresh order would be issued after hearing the petitioners
adverting to all the relevant statutory provisions and Paragraph
11 of the Annexure I judgment. In Annexure V Order, liberty
was given to the Petitioners to approach this Court again after
two months if a fresh order is not issued.
5. Since the Respondents did not pass an Order as submitted in
Annexure V Order, the Petitioners have filed this Contempt
Case on 07.07.2025. After the filing of the Contempt Case,
since the Respondent No.1 ceased to be the Managing
2026:KER:5667
Director of the KSRTC and the Petitioner impleaded the
Respondent No.3, who is the present Managing Director, as
per I.A. No.1 of 2025.
6. The Respondent No.3 passed an Order dated 02.12.2025
again rejecting the claim of the Petitioners for refixation of their
Pay with that of the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition. The said
Order dated 02.12.2025 is produced by the Counsel for the
Respondents along with a Memo dated 07.01.2026. As per the
Order dated 02.12.2025, Respondent No.3 withdrew the earlier
Annexure IV Order dated 17.08.2023.
7. I heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, and the learned Counsel for the
Respondents, Sri.Deepu Thankan.
8. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that
the Respondents have been passing Order one after another
without understanding the specific directions in the Annexure I
2026:KER:5667
judgment. This Court has ample power while considering a
Contempt Case to give appropriate directions for remedying
and rectifying the things done in violation of its orders. The
learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Amit Kumar Das, Joint Secretary, Baitanik v. Shrimati
Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust [(2024) 11 SCC 679] in support
of this contention. Learned counsel invited my attention to the
different Orders passed by the Respondents dated 31.03.2023,
17.08.2023, and 02.12.2025 and contended that the
Respondents have been issuing Orders taking the same stand
when this Court has expressed that the Orders are not in
compliance with the directions in the Annexure I judgment.
Learned Counsel contended that this Court has made
categorical declarations in the Annexure I judgment that the
Petitioners are entitled to get their Pay protected at par with
their junior. The contention of the Respondents that the
2026:KER:5667
Petitioners and the 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition belong to
different cadres is answered by this Court in Paragraph No.11
of the judgment holding that it was not on account of any
request from the part of the petitioners that they were given the
promotion from UDC (SG) to Superintendent; that it was done
solely because there was no other person available in the
category of Special Assistant/Senior Assistant at the relevant
time. The Respondent No.3 ought to have considered the claim
of the Petitioners, taking note of the specific declarations in the
Annexure I judgment on the aforesaid reasons that the
Petitioners' pay ought to have been protected, at least qua their
junior. The present Order dated 02.12.2025 is the verbatim
reproduction of the Annexure IV Order dated 17.08.2023,
which was found to be not in compliance with the directions in
the Annexure I judgment. The Respondents had to withdraw
the Orders dated 31.03.2023 and 17.08.2023 when this Court
2026:KER:5667
expressed that the same were passed not in compliance with
the directions in Annexure I judgment, as revealed from
Annexure III and Annexure V Orders passed by this Court.
Hence, the learned Counsel pressed for passing appropriate
orders in this Contempt Case to compel the Respondent No.3
to pass an Order stepping up the pay of the Petitioners with
that of the 3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition in compliance
with the directions in the Annexure I judgment.
9. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the Respondents
contended that by passing the Order dated 02.12.2025, the
Respondent No.3 has substantially complied with the
directions in the Annexure I judgment of this Court. If the
Petitioners have any grievance against the said Order, they
have to challenge the said Order independently, and the
legality of the said Order cannot be agitated in this Contempt
Case. Learned Counsel invited my attention to the Memo of
2026:KER:5667
Charges in this Contempt Case, in which the charge is that the
Respondent is wilfully refusing to comply with the directions in
Annexure V Order dated 13.02.2025 passed by this Court. This
Contempt Case was filed when the Respondents failed to pass
Order as per Annexure V Order. When the Respondent No.3
has passed the Order dated 02.12.2025, the present Contempt
Case is liable to be closed as the Respondents had complied
with the directions contained in Annexure V Order. The
question whether the Respondent No.3 has complied with the
directions in the Annexure I judgment of this Court while
passing the Order dated 02.12.2025 is beyond the scope of
this Contempt Case.
10.I have considered the rival contentions.
11.The Petitioners filed this Contempt Case when the
Respondents refused to pass a fresh order in compliance with
the directions contained in the Annexure V Order dated
2026:KER:5667
13.02.2025. Annexure V Order dated 13.02.2025 was passed
recording the submission of the learned Counsel for the
respondent that Annexure IV Order would be withdrawn and a
fresh order will be issued after hearing the petitioners,
adverting to all relevant statutory provisions and Paragraph
No.11 of Annexure I judgment. The Application to reopen the
earlier Contempt Case was closed by this Court, giving liberty
to the Petitioners to approach this Court again after two months
if a fresh order is not issued. There is no specific time limit
prescribed in Annexure V to pass a fresh Order. But when the
Petitioners are given liberty to approach this Court after two
months if no fresh order is given, it is clear that this Court has
given two months' time to the Respondents to pass a fresh
Order.
12. Strictly speaking, in this Contempt Case, the scope of enquiry
is limited to whether Respondent No.3 has passed the Order
2026:KER:5667
dated 02.12.2025 as undertaken before this Court, which is
recorded in Annexure V Order. It is stated in Annexure V that
the Counsel on behalf of the Respondents submitted that the
fresh orders will be issued adverting the relevant statutory
provisions and Paragraph 11 of the Annexure I judgment. In
Paragraph 11 of the Annexure I judgment, this Court has
entered a specific finding that the pay of the Petitioners ought
to have been protected at least on par with that of their junior.
But in Paragraph No.15, this Court directed the KSRTC to
advert to the impact of Rule 28A of Part I KSR - especially
Ruling No.1 thereunder in the new Order and to take necessary
action, and depending upon the new Order, if the KSRTC is to
find that Petitioners are entitled to higher Scale of Pay, then
necessary action shall be taken to fix it, at least on par with the
3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition and to disburse the eligible
amounts to them. In such a case, this Court has made the
2026:KER:5667
declaration in Paragraph No.11 of the Annexure I judgment
subject to the decision of the KSRTC on the question whether
the Petitioners are entitled to a higher pay as per Rule 28A of
Part I KSR and Ruling No.1 thereunder. The question of
stepping up pay to that of the 3rd Respondent in the Writ
Petition arises only if the KSRTC finds that the Petitioners are
entitled to higher pay as per Rule 28A of Part I KSR and Ruling
No.1 thereunder. In the Order dated 02.12.2025, the
Respondent No.3 has found that Rule 28A of Part I KSR and
Ruling No.1 thereunder is not applicable to the case of the
Petitioners, considering the judgments of this Court in W.A.
Nos.1592/2007 and W.A. No.167/2003. Since this question is
answered against the Petitioners, the Petitioners cannot claim
that the KSRTC is bound to step up the pay of the Petitioners
to that of the 3rd Respondent in the Writ Petition in light of the
declaration in Paragraph No.11 of the Annexure I judgment.
2026:KER:5667
The legality of the finding of the Respondent No.3 with respect
to Rule 28A of Part I KSR and Ruling No.1 thereunder in the
Order dated 02.12.2025 is not a matter to be considered by this
Court in this Contempt Case. The Petitioners have to challenge
the said finding in an independent proceeding.
13.Accordingly, I dismiss this Contempt Case, giving liberty to the
Petitioners to challenge the finding of the Respondent No.3
with respect to Rule 28A of Part I KSR and Ruling No.1
thereunder in the Order dated 02.12.2025 and making it clear
that all the contentions of the Petitioners are left open.
Sd/-
M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
JUDGE
Jma/shg
2026:KER:5667
APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) NO. 1627 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
11.08.2022 IN WP(C)NO. 11021/2016 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure II A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE DATED
24.02.2023 ISSUED TO THE 1ST AND
2NDRESPONDENT.
Annexure III A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.06.2023
IN CON. CASE (C) NO. 867 OF 2023 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
Annexure IV A TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO.PL1/013481/15(A&V
B1) DATED 17.08.2023.
Annexure V A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2025
IN IA. NO.1/2023 IN CON. CASE(C) NO. 867 OF
2023(S) IN WP(C) 11021/2016 PASSED BY THE
HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA.
