Tenetowl LogoTenetowl
High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeDisposed of with directions to consider represe...

Rajendran K., Joy K., Ramesh Kumar K.M. and C. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation

Case / Petition Number:WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
Judgment Date
2022-01-28
Court Decision / Holding
disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibits-P17 to P20 representations in light of the judgment in K L Francis ( supra) and the 11.05.2021 judgment in W.P.(C) No.11010/2021, with expeditious orders within two months; the directions are subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court challenging K L Francis ( supra).
Final Disposition
Disposed of with directions to consider representations in light of K L Francis (Supra) and the 11.05.2021 judgment, subject to the outcome of the Supreme Court's SLP, to be completed within two months.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • RAJENDRAN.K
  • JOY K.
  • RAMESHKUMAR K.M.
  • C.SURESHKUMAR

Respondents

  • STATE OF KERALA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
  • KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • N. UNNIKRISHNAN
  • • UBA I KUMAR BALAN

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Deepu Thankan, Standing Counsel
  • • Sri A. S. Dheeraj, Government Pleader

Case Synopsis & Summary

The petitioners, four individuals employed by KSRTC, challenge the denial of pensionary benefits on the ground that provisional service prior to absorption into KSRTC should be counted along with regular service for pension computation. They claim entitlement based on the Larger Bench judgment in K L Francis v. KSRTC (2015) which held provisional service be reckoned for pension purposes. The Transport Corporation contends that the K L Francis decision has been challenged in the Supreme Court and is therefore not binding at this stage. They also rely on a prior Kerala High Court order and argue that the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court. The petition was heard on admission and the Court noted the pendency of the SLP challenging K L Francis and the need for a considered evaluation of the petitioners’ representations. The Court directed the KSRTC to consider Exhibits-P17 to P20 representations in light of K L Francis and the 11 May 2021 judgment in W.P.(C) No.11010/2021, with expeditious orders within two months, expressly noting that the directive is subject to the outcome of the SLP. The decision thereby provides interim relief by directing a reassessment of pensionary benefits in view of established jurisprudence, while keeping the final outcome contingent on the Supreme Court’s decision.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners submit that their provisional service in KSRTC, completed 240 duties before absorption, must be counted for pension purposes alongside regular service, citing the Larger Bench decision in K L Francis v. KSRTC and the Court’s own 2021 decision in W.P.(C) No.11010 of 2021. They have placed Exhibits-P17 to P20 representations seeking expeditious consideration in light of the K L Francis ruling, and urge the Court to direct timely action pending final resolution of the SLP before the Supreme Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contest the applicability of K L Francis due to its challenge before the Supreme Court; hence, they argue that the Court should refrain from binding effect and await the Apex Court’s decision. They rely on the ongoing status of the SLP and prior judgments, suggesting that provisional service counting cannot be finalized without the Supreme Court’s ruling, while juxtaposing the 2021 order directing provisional consideration.

Cited Precedents (3)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
K L Francis v. KSRTC and another2015 (2) KHC 1PositiveCourt relies on this Larger Bench decision as the guiding precedent to reckon provisional service for pension, albeit contingent on the eventual Supreme Court outcome (SLP).
R. Sulabhachandran & Others v. State of Kerala and AnotherW.P.(C) No.11010/2021 (A)PositiveJudgment dated 11.05.2021 is invoked as supportive authority and for interim direction consistent with the petitioners' request.
Varghese, K. V. and Another v. State of Kerala and AnotherW.P.(C) No. 231/2017Mentioned OnlyExhibit21 cites this decision; it is not expressly relied upon in the reasoning of the present order.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Rajendran K., Joy K., Ramesh Kumar K.M. and C. Suresh Kumar v. State of Kerala and Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 1 ``` ``` IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V FRIDAY, THE 28[TH]DAY OF JANUARY 2022 / 8TH MAGHA,1943 ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ## **`PETITIONER/S:`** ``` 1RAJENDRAN.K, AGED 58 YEARS, ASWATHY BHAVAN, CHERAPALLY, VALIYAMALA,PARANDODE. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695542. 2JOY K., AGED 56 YEARS, JOSE VILASOM,VALIYAMALA, ERAVOOR, ARYANAD PIN – 695542. 3RAMESHKUMAR K.M., AGED 59 YEARS, KRISHNABHAVAN, ULANAD P.O, KULANADA (VIA)KOZHENCHERRY, PIN – 683503. 4C.SURESHKUMAR, AGED 58 YEARS, VIJAYAVILASAM,PUTHUKULANGARA, PIN – 695541. BY ADVS. N.UNNIKRISHNAN UBAI KUMAR BALAN ``` ## **`RESPONDENT/S:`** ``` 1STATE OF KERALA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 2 ``` ``` THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001. ``` ``` 2KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 ``` ``` SRI DEEPU THANKAN, STANDING COUNSEL ``` ``` SRI A S DHEERAJ, GOVERNMENT PLEADER ``` ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSION ON28.01.2022,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 3 ``` ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners contend that they were appointed on a regular basis in the 1st respondent Corporation and they later absorbed in the establishment on their completion of 240 duties. The grievance of the petitioners is that for the purpose of pensionary benefits, their provisional service is not counted along with the regular service. Relying on the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in **K L Francis v. KSRTC and another** [2015 (2) KHC 1], it is contended by the petitioners that the provisional service of the Conductors/Drivers in KSRTC is also to be counted along with the regular service for the purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. 2. Sri.Deepu Thankan, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Corporation, submits that the judgment of the Larger Bench of this Court in **K L Francis** (Supra) has been challenged by the Corporation and the matter is still pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners on the other hand would refer to the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C) No.11010 of 2021 dated 11.05.2021 and it is contended that this Court, relying on the ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 4 ``` judgment in **K L Francis** (Supra), has directed the Corporation to reckon the provisional service of the petitioners along with their regular service for the purpose of pensionary benefits, however, subject to the final result of the Special Leave Petition filed by the KSRTC. The learned counsel submits that the petitioners have preferred Exhibits-P17 to P20 representations before the respondents and their limited request at this stage is for expeditious consideration of the representations in the light of the law laid down in **K.L. Francis** (Supra). 4. Having regard to the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across bar, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to consider Exhibits-P17 to P20 representations filed by the petitioners in the light of the judgment of this Court in **K L Francis** (Supra) and also the judgment dated 11.05.2021 in W.P.(C)No.11010 of 2021. Orders shall be passed expeditiously in any event with notice to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the directions issued as aforesaid will be subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petition preferred by the Corporation and pending before the Apex Court challenging the judgment in **K L Francis** (Supra). ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 5 ``` With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- ## **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V,** **JUDGE** DSV ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 6 ``` ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 2052/2022`** ``` PETITIONER (S) EXHIBITS : ``` ``` Exhibit1A TRUE COPY MEMORANDUM NO. PL1/110/2000/KTDA DATED 24.05.2000 ISSUED BY DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KATTAKKADA. Exhibit2A TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT MD NO. 086259 DATED 30.05.2000 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KATTAKKADA. Exhibit3A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. PL12/025739/2008 DATED 08.02.2013. Exhibit4A TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO. EXG. 1914 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (IA) IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PETITIONER. Exhibit5A TRUE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT CI NO. 75603 DATED 08.11.1994 ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KATTAKKADA. Exhibit6A TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO. PL3-106/97/KTDA DATED 24.02.1997 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, KATTAKKADA. Exhibit7A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. PL12/025739/2008 DATED 07.04.2012. Exhibit8A TRUE COPY OF PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO. 55675 ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER (IA). Exhibit9A TRUE COPY MEMORANDUM NO. E1/347/99/ADR DATED 24.02.1999 ISSUED BY THE ASSISTANT ``` ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 7 ``` ``` TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC, ADOOR. ``` ``` Exhibit10A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO PL12/025739/2008 DATED 07.04.2012. ``` ``` Exhibit11A TRUE COPY OF MEMO NO. E2-240/12/ADR DATED 07.11.2012. ``` ``` Exhibit12A TRUE COPY OF PENSIONERS' PASS NO.AE -119745 DATED 26.04.2021. ``` ``` Exhibit13 ``` - `A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO.` ``` E2.0271/97/KMR DATED 30.04.1997 ISSUED BY THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER, KSRTC KILIMANOOR IN RESPECT OF 4TH PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit14A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO PL12/025739/2008 DATED 24.04.2012. ``` ``` Exhibit15A TRUE COPY OF MEMORANDUM NO. E2/5307/12/NDD DATED 07.12.2012. ``` ``` Exhibit16A TRUE COPY OF EX-GRATIA PENSION PAYMENT ORDER NO. EX-1977. ``` ``` Exhibit17 ``` - `A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FIRST PETITIONER.` - `Exhibit18 A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE SECOND PETITIONER.` ``` Exhibit19 ``` ``` A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 07.11.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE THIRD PETITIONER. ``` ``` Exhibit20 ``` - `A TRUE COPY OF REPRESENTATION DATED 26.12.2021 SUBMITTED BY THE FOURTH PETITIONER.` ``` WP(C) NO. 2052 OF 2022 ``` ``` 8 ``` ``` Exhibit21A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 10.01.2017 IN W.P.(C) NO. 231/2017 (VARGHESE, K. V AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER). Exhibit22A TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 11.05.2021 IN W.P ( C) NO. 11010/2021 (A) (R. SULABHACHANDRAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER). ``` ``` RESPONDENT (S) EXHIBITS : NIL ```