Andandan T v. KSRTC and Prithwiraj S (Contempt of Court)

``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANIL K. NARENDRAN ``` ``` THURSDAY, THE 23[RD] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1945 CON.CASE(C)NO.2140 OF 2022 ``` ``` AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.01.2018 IN WP(C) 38303/2017 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`PETITIONER/PETITIONER:`** ``` ANDANDAN T, AGED 61 YEARS S/O. KORU T, THOKKAMANNIL HOUSE, CHULOOR P.O, NIT (VIA), KOZHILODE, PIN - 673601 ``` ``` BY ADVS. K.S.MADHUSOODANAN M.M.VINOD KUMAR P.K.RAKESH KUMAR K.S.MIZVER M.J.KIRANKUMAR ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:`** - **`1 BIJU PRABHAKAR`** ``` CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023 ``` ``` 2PRITHWIRAJ S WORKS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006 ``` ## **`OTHER PRESENT:`** ``` SRI DEEPU THANKAN - R1 ``` ``` THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -2- ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioner has filed this Contempt Case alleging noncompliance of the directions contained in Annexure I judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2018 in W.P(C)No.38303 of 2017. That writ petition was disposed of, taking note of the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) before the Apex Court against the decision of the larger Bench of this Court in **K.L.Francis v. KSRTC and another [2015 (2) KHC 1]** . Paragraphs 3 to 5 of the judgment dated 16.01.2018 in W.P(C)No.38303 of 2017 read thus: “3. The issue raised in this writ petition is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of a Larger Bench of this Court in **K.L.Francis v. KSRTC and another [2015 (2) KHC 1]** . 4. During the course of arguments, it is brought to the notice of this Court that, Special Leave Petitions are pending before the Apex Court against the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in **K.L.Francis (supra)** and that, the Apex Court has granted interim stay in some of the SLPs, only against the further proceedings in Contempt of Court cases. 5. In the result, in the light of the judgment in **K.L.Francis (supra)** , this Court is of the view that provisional service followed by regular service can be counted for pension. Therefore, prior service of the petitioner also shall be taken into account as per the judgment in **K.L.Francis (supra)** for the purpose of reckoning pension. However, it is made CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** clear that this would be subject to the Special Leave Petitions filed by the KSRTC against the judgment in **K.L.Francis (supra)** . Needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.” 2. By Annexure II letter dated 15.03.2018 of the 1[st] respondent, the petitioner was informed that the KSRTC will take a decision on the matter as soon as the Special Leave Petitions pending before the Apex Court are disposed of. 3. The Civil Appeals arising out of the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in **K.L.Francis [2015 (2) KHC 1]** were disposed of by the Apex Court, by Annexure III order dated 02.03.2022. The relevant paragraphs of the order of the Apex Court dated 02.03.2022 read thus; “We have seen the note submitted today in pursuance of our order dated 03.12.2021. Instead of applying the scheme from the date of retirement of these persons, what was proposed was that for the arrears, an _ex-gratia_ amount may be worked out based on the different periods of service. It is in this context that the appellant Corporation has proposed the following: a) The arrears of pension will be worked out and 10% of that amount would be paid as _ex-gratia_ amount; b) the _ex-gratia_ amount would not exceed Rs.50,000/-; and c) the amount would be paid in 24 installments. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in the aforesaid context. CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -4- As far as the third aspect is concerned, which is installments, learned counsel for the appellants has volunteered to abide by any reduced installments as this Court may deem appropriate. We consider appropriate to reduce the installments to 12 installments. The matter of concern is firstly the 10% _ex-gratia_ payment which is pleaded by the respondents to be too meagre. This is coupled with the second aspect of there being a ceiling of Rs. 50,000/-. On our query learned counsel for the State submits that this figure of Rs. 50,000/- with 10% of the total amount of arrears of pension would not be exceeded broadly for persons who have put in 11-12 years of service. However, there are a reasonable number of persons who may have worked for much longer years to entitle them for pensionable service which may go upto about 17 years. We do believe that it would be unfair to them to treat them at par with somebody who has put in 11 to 12 years of service. The other aspect is arising from the amount payable as _exgratia_ amounts. The appellant Corporation should be conscious of the fact that the impugned order does not favour them. That being the position we have to work out some equities and that can only be done by exercising our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 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 ceiling 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 ceiling limit to Rs.1,50,000/-. CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -5- The first installment 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.” In Annexure III order dated 02.03.2022, the Apex Court clarified that such of the employees who do not get the benefit of the Scheme may make their representation to the KSRTC. 4. Claiming benefits in terms of the Scheme referred to in Annexure-III order of the Apex Court, the petitioner filed Annexure IV representation dated 23.03.2022 before the 1[st] respondent herein, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSRTC. Alleging willful disobedience of the respondents in implementing Annexure I judgment of this Court dated 16.01.2018 in W.P(C)No.38303 of 2017, the petitioner is before this Court in this Contempt Case, invoking the provisions under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971. 5. On 16.11.2022, when this Contempt Case came up for admission, the 1[st] respondent was directed to file an affidavit explaining the facts and circumstances. 6. On 18.01.2023, the 1[st] respondent filed an affidavit CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -6- dated 08.01.2023. The stand taken in paragraph 5 of the said affidavit is that the petitioner is not eligible as per the Scheme approved by the Apex Court, since the Scheme covers only the employees regularised in the service of the KSRTC as per PSC Advice R-113(2)13460/2000/GW dated 22.06.2000, G.O.(Ms.) No.9/2001/Tran. dated 05.03.2001 and G.O.(Ms.)No.40/2007/ Tran. dated 15.10.2007. Since the petitioner is not eligible under the said Scheme, the only option available to him is to make representation before the Chairman and Managing Director of KSRTC. 7. On 30.01.2023, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit dated 28.01.2023, producing therewith Annexure V KSRTC Provisional Employees Pension Scheme of the year 2021, Annexure VI memorandum of settlement dated 13.04.1999, which is referred to in Annexure V Scheme and Annexure VI discharge certificate. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC for the respondents. 9. As already noticed, the stand taken in the affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent is that the petitioner is not eligible as per Annexure V Scheme approved by the Apex Court in Annexure III CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** order dated 02.03.2022, since the said Scheme covers only the employees regularised in the service of the KSRTC as per PSC advice dated 22.06.2000 and Government orders dated 05.03.2001 and 15.10.2007. Since the petitioner is not eligible under the said Scheme, the only option available is to make representation before the Chairman and Managing Director of KSRTC. 10. During the course of arguments, the learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC would submit that the request made by the petitioner in Annexure-IV has already been rejected by the order of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer dated 07.10.2022, holding that the petitioner is not eligible for any benefits as per Annexure V Scheme approved by the Apex Court in Annexure III order. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is yet to be served with a copy of that order dated 07.10.2022. 12. The learned Standing Counsel for KSRTC would undertake that a copy of the order dated 07.10.2022 will be served on the learned counsel for the petitioner, today itself. 13. In such circumstances, this Contempt Case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge in CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -8- appropriate proceedings, the order dated 07.10.2022 of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, whereby the request made by the petitioner in Annexure-IV representation stands rejected. 14. Though this Contempt Case is one filed on 29.10.2022, the respondents have not chosen to produce a copy of the order dated 07.10.2022 of the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, whereby the request made by the petitioner in Annexure-IV representation stands rejected, along with the affidavit filed by the 1[st] respondent on 18.01.2023, which was one sworn to on 08.01.2023. They have also not chosen to communicate a copy of the said order to the petitioner, a pensioner who retired from service of the KSRTC, on 31.07.2017, so as to enable him to challenge that order in appropriate proceedings. The respondents have wasted the judicial time of the Court, which could have been avoided, in case the said order was either communicated to the petitioner or brought to the notice of this Court, at the appropriate time. 15. For the above reason, though this Contempt Case is closed, the 1[st] respondent, who is the Chairman and Managing Director of the KSRTC is imposed with a cost of Rs.5,000/(Rupees Five Thousand only), for wasting the judicial time of the Court. CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -9- Considering the fact that the petitioner is a pensioner, who retired from service of the KSRTC on 31.07.2017, the cost ordered as above is directed to be paid to the petitioner, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. Sd/- **ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE** bkn/- CON.CASE(C) NO. 2140 OF 2022 -10- ## **`APPENDIX OF CON.CASE(C) 2140/2022`** ``` PETITIONER ANNEXURES ``` ``` Annexure-I ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P(C)NO. 38303/2017 DATED 16-1-2018 OF THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT ``` ``` Annexure-IIPHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. PA3 (PA8)/ 022898/2017/WPC DATED 15-3-2018 OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ``` ``` Annexure-III ``` ``` PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN C.A. NOS. 3161-3165/2019 DATED 2-3-2022 ``` ``` Annexure-IVPHOTOCOPY OF THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 23-3-2022 EXCLUDING ENCLOSURES. ``` ``` Annexure V ``` ``` Photocopy of the Scheme of Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Provisional Employees Pension Scheme (KSRTC, PEPS), 2021 dated 01-10-2021 ``` ``` Annexure VIPhotocopy of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 13th April 1999. ``` ``` Annexure VII ``` ``` Photocopy of the discharge certificate issued by Assistant Works Manager in charge of Regional Workshop, KSRTC, Kozhikode bearing No.E2-313/98/Rw/KKD dated 28-08-2002. ```