Anandan T v. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

: 1 : WPC 15458/2023 ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM ``` ## **`PRESENT`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI ``` ``` MONDAY, THE 8[TH] DAY OF JANUARY 2024 / 18TH POUSHA, 1945 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 15458OF 2023 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` ANANDAN T, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. KORU, THOKKAMANNIL HOUSE, P.O., CHULOOR, NIT (VIA), KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673601 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.S.MADHUSOODANAN M.M.VINOD KUMAR P.K.RAKESH KUMAR K.S.MIZVER M.J.KIRANKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM REP. BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 695023 ``` ``` 2WORKS MANAGER REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 ``` ``` BY ADV Deepu Thankan ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.01.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` : 2 : WPC 15458/2023 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner was employed by the 1[st] respondent as blacksmith on daily wages on 15.5.1997 through the Employment Exchange. He continued till 25.6.2002. Thereafter, from March 2003 onwards, he worked till 18.3.2005. He was selected by the Kerala Public Service Commission to the post of blacksmith and worked from 19.3.2005 till 31.7.2017. On 13.4.1999, a Memorandum of Settlement was entered into between the 1[st] respondent and the Employees’ Association. Clause XXIII of the settlement deals with pension and sub clause 3 deals with counting of daily rated service to pension service. 2. A larger Bench of this court in **Francis v. KSRTC [2015(1) KLT 1051]** interpreted clause XXIII in favour of the employees holding that the provisional/daily wage services : 3 : WPC 15458/2023 rendered prior to their regular appointment are to be counted for pensionary benefits. The petitioner, therefore, filed representation through the 2[nd] respondent and was forwarded to the 1[st] respondent. The 1[st] respondent replied that since the judgment of **Francis (supra** ) was challenged before the Apex court and is stayed, the benefit cannot be given to the petitioner. The apex court, by Ext.P7 judgment in civil Appeal No.3161-3165/2019 disposed of the appeal as follows: “We are thus of the view that arrears payable should be quantified at 20% of the arrears of the pension amount and accordingly the maximum sealing limit should also be increased generally to Rs. 1 lakh. However, that would mean that the persons who have put in more than 11-12 years of service would be treated at par with them and thus to take care of their interest we increase the maximum sealing limit to Rs. 1,50,000/-. The first instalment of arrears should begin from first week of May, 2022 to give time to the corporation to work it out. The appeals stand disposed in the aforesaid terms. At the request of learned counsel appearing for some of the parties, it is clarified that such of the employees who do not get benefit of the scheme may make their own representations to the appellant-Corporation.” : 4 : WPC 15458/2023 3. Ext.P9 is a scheme of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation provisional employees’ pension scheme 2021. The eligibility of employee seeking the benefit under the scheme is to the persons regularised in the service of the corporation as per government order (a) PSC advice R- 113(2)13460/2000/GW dated 22.06.2000 (b) GO (MS) No.9/2001/Tran dated 5.3.2001 and (c) GO(M.S.) No.40/2007/Tran dated 15.10.2007. Ext.P10 is a copy of the letter rejecting the claim of the petitioner as he was appointed as per RIB/2035040/GW/04 dated 01/01/2005 through PSC, and therefore will not come within the purview of the scheme approved by the apex court. 4. Though the petitioner filed Contempt Case as C.O.(C.) No.2140 of 2022, it was disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order passed against the : 5 : WPC 15458/2023 petitioner. Hence, the petitioner approached this court challenging Ext.P10. 5. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Ext.P7 judgment of the Apex court, the persons who were coming within the ambit of the scheme were directed to be paid Rs.1,50,000/-. At the same time, it was clarified that employees, who do not give the benefit of the scheme may make their own representation to the appellate corporation. It is on the basis of the said clarification that the petitioner filed representation before the 1[st] respondent, which was disposed of by Ext.P10 stating that the petitioner will not come within the purview of the approved scheme. 6. A counter affidavit was filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioner was appointed purely on temporary basis and was terminated after completion of 179 days. The appointment was the daily wage period would not be : 6 : WPC 15458/2023 considered for any service benefit in case of any future in KSRTC. He was terminated on appointment 25.6.2002. Subsequently, he was advised by the KPSC and was appointed as empanelled blacksmith by order dated 15.3.2005. The petitioner will not come under the purview of the scheme as the regularisation was not within the regular tune of the order of the scheme. Therefore, the petitioner will not get the benefit of the judgment of apex court. 7. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed another affidavit producing a copy of the judgment of apex court in Civil Appeal No.11338-11339/2016 dated 9.3.2022 and contends that in the said judgment those persons, who were not coming within the scheme were permitted to approach the State Government with a representation and the State Government has directed to consider the same expeditiously. : 7 : WPC 15458/2023 8. A perusal of the order would show that those persons, who were parties in Ext.R1(a) judgment were regularised in service with prospective effect after obtaining the Government sanction and they claimed retrospective benefit. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the apex court directed the employees who were regularised to file representation before the State Government for redressal of their grievance. The facts of the said case and this are entirely different 9. When the apex court had given liberty to persons, who were not included in the scheme to get the benefit of counting of provisional service before permanent appointment, the petitioner moved the Corporation. Therefore, the Corporation is bound to follow the directions of the apex court in Ext.P7 judgment. Accordingly, Ext.P10 letter of the 1[st] respondent is quashed and the 1[st] respondent Corporation is directed to take : 8 : WPC 15458/2023 up the representation filed by the petitioner, in view of Ext.P7 judgment of the apex court, and pass appropriate orders. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition disposed of as above. Sd/- **BASANT BALAJI JUDGE** dl/ : 9 : WPC 15458/2023 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15458/2023`** ## `PETITIONER EXHIBITS` ``` Exhibit P1PHOTOCOPY OF THE DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE BEARING NO. E2-313/98/RW/KKD DATED 28-08-2002 ISSUED FROM THE OFFICE OF 2NDRESPONDENT. Exhibit P2PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. G1.1/542/09/RW/KKD DATED 28-08-2017 OF TOTAL DAYS OF WORK 1 YEAR 4 MONTHS AND 25 DAYS. Exhibit P3PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM BEARING NO. E2/302/2017 / RW,KKD ISSUED BY 2ND RESPONDENT DATED01-08-2017. Exhibit P4PHOTOCOPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT DATED 13-04-1999. Exhibit P5PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 12-06-2017 TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO 1ST RESPONDENT. Exhibit P6PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.( C) NO. 38303/2017 DATED 16-01-2018 OF THIS HON`BLE COURT Exhibit P7PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN C.A. NOS. 3161-3165/2019 DATED 02-03-2022 Exhibit P8PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-03-2022 EXCLUDING ENCLOSURES Exhibit P9PHOTOCOPY OF THE SCHEME OF KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION PROVISIONAL EMPLOYEES PENSION SCHEME (KSRTC, PEPS), 2021 DATED 01-10-2021 Exhibit P10PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. PA6(PA8)/022898/2017 DATED 07-10-2022. Exhibit P11PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER IN CONT. CASE (C) NO. 2140/2022 DATED 23-03-2023 OF THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA. ``` ## `RESPONDENT EXHIBITS` ``` EXHIBIT R1(a)true copy of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court in Civil Appeal Nos.11338-11339/2016 dated 09/03/2022. ```