Sharmathali.K.P and others v. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V WEDNESDAY, THE 20[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 29TH BHADRA, 1945 WP(C) NO. 24403 OF 2023`** ## **`- PETITIONERS :`** - **`1 SHARMATHALI.K.P, AGED 56 YEARS ARPAN HOUSE, KOTTOLI PARAMBA, MORIKKARA POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (TLPIST SENIOR GRADE, RETIRED ON 30.04.2023, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PEN GI5I97), PIN - 670361`** - **`2 SURESH BABU.T, AGED 56 YEARS ARJUN NIVAS, KALIPARAMBIL, CHERUVATHUR, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (CHARGEMEN, RETIRED ON 31.03.2023, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PEN G19400), PIN - 670361`** - **`3 JIJIMON, AGED 56 YEARS KALAPPURAYIL HOUSE, ACHOORNAM, ATHIMOOLA, POZHUTHANA POST OFFICE, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN-673 575 (DRIVER, RETIRED ON 31.01.2023, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KALPETTA, PEN G21122)`** - **`4 MUHAMMED.K, AGED 56 YEARS PANDARAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAYAMBRA POST OFFICE, KUNNAMANGLAM, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (HEAD VEHICLE SUPERVISOR, RETIRED ON 3O.O4.2O23, DISTRICT OFFICE, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PEN G 16967)`** - **`5 BHASKARAN.K, AGED 56 YEARS KIZH.AKKAYIL HOUSE, KLZHAKKOTH POST OFFICE, KODUVALLY (VIA) KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, (CHARGEMAN, RETIRED ON 3O.O4.2O23, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, KOZHIKODE, PEN G19366), PIN - 673572`** - **`6 SHAJI PHILIP, AGED 56 YEARS THANDANKULAM HOUSE, PUNNAKKAL POST OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT (BLACKSMITH, RETIRED ON 28.02.2023, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REGIONAL WORKSHOP, KOZHIKODE, PEN G19703), PIN - 670603`** ## **`BY ADV C.V.MILTON`** W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 2 ## **`- RESPONDENTS :`** ``` 1MANAGINGDIRECTOR REPRESENTEDKERALASTATEROADTRANSPORTCORPORATION TRANSPORTBHAVAN,FORT.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,PIN-695023 ``` - **`2 THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT. P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023`** - **`3 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673004`** - **`4 THE DISTRICT OFFICER KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SULTHAN BATHERY, WAYANAD DISTRICT, PIN - 673592`** ## **`BY ADV DEEPU THANKAN`** ``` THISWRITPETITION(CIVIL)HAVINGCOMEUPFORADMISSIONON 20.09.2023,THECOURTONTHESAMEDAYDELIVEREDTHEFOLLOWING: ``` W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 3 ## **JUDGMENT** The petitioners in the instant case are former employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, having reached superannuation in the initial quarter of 2023. Their grievance concerns the non-disbursement of the Provident Fund closure amount due to them. The first petitioner has an additional claim towards non-disbursal of the staff welfare fund. 2. The petitioners contend that the amounts they seek are not amounts that the respondents would be compelled to procure from any external resources. The funds in question represent amounts meticulously and systematically deducted from the petitioners' salaries during their period of active employment. They contend that non-disbursement of the amounts would result in severe financial strain upon them. according to them, they do not have a consistent source of income post-retirement. They have reached such a stage in their lives that they need amounts for medical expenses for themselves and their spouses. They state that they are forced to avail themselves of private loans to traverse this precarious stage of their lives. The failure of the respondents to disburse the due amount has compromised their financial stability, and it has exposed them to elevated levels of stress and W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 4 anxiety. he petitioners assert that such non-disbursement of due amounts is a blatant infringement of their constitutional rights and a contravention of the precedent laid down by this Court in **Soman v. K.S.R.T.C[1]** . It is on these assertions that this writ petition is filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents 1 and 2 to disburse the Provident Fund closure with statutory interest until the date of payment and staff welfare fund to the 1st petitioner. 3. The 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit. It is stated that the Corporation is a large entity, employing approximately 26,000 individuals and supporting around 43,000 pensioners. The Corporation is confronted with financial challenges and currently finds itself unable to disburse any funds to the petitioners. It is further stated that in compliance with the directions issued by this Court, measures are underway to settle amounts owed to employees who retired in 2022. As the petitioners attained superannuation in 2023, they may have to wait for their turn. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced. 5. The grievance of the petitioners, who are retirees, is that their employer is not initiating any steps to disburse the Provident Fund closure amount and the Staff Welfare amount due to them on closure of the fund. > 1 [2005 (3) KLT 405] W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 5 6. It would be worthwhile to note that a Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.289 of 2001 passed an order dated 18.10.2001 directing the Corporation to see that retirement benefits are disbursed to the pensioners strictly complying with the following directions: - “1. The Corporation would earmark 10% of the daily collection for the disbursement of retirement benefits to its employees, and the said amount would be kept in a separate Treasury account or otherwise bearing maximum interest and retirement benefit due to be disbursed from that fund. 2. The Corporation shall not divert hereafter any contribution made by the existing employees towards Provident Fund for any other purpose without getting orders from this Court. 3. The corporation would file a periodical statement before this Court every month stating the amount lying in the account on the basis of the above direction and the amount disbursed. 4. The corporation would keep a register of districtwise and also Statewise, and the amount would be disbursed to the pensioners strictly on the basis of the Statewise register kept by them. After disbursing the amount every month, a statement would be filed before this Court. 5. The retirement benefits would be disbursed strictly on the basis of the date of retirement unless otherwise ordered by the order of this Court. 6. A copy of this order shall be served on the Director of Treasuries. He shall ensure that no amount is drawn from the Account mentioned in direction (1) above, except for the purpose of disbursing pensionary claims. This Account shall not be subject to any W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 6 attachment or treasury ban. The amounts in P.F. Account shall be utilised only for satisfying P.F. claims of existing/retired employees.” 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in **D.S. Nakara v. Union of India[2]** , had occasion to hold that pensioners belong to that category of citizens who, on retirement, cease to earn the monthly salary and are expected to depend upon the terminal benefits and the monthly pension during the rest of their life. The sudden stoppage of income would put them into difficulties and hardships. Hence, the only solace of the retired employee is the amount paid as D.C.R.G., commutation value of pension, Provident Fund, etc., apart from the monthly pension which they are entitled to get on account of the long service rendered in the respective establishments. 8. Withholding terminal benefits not only jeopardizes the financial stability of pensioners like the petitioner but also transgresses their rights to a dignified life after retirement. It is to be steadfastly ensured that pensioners obtain their rightful entitlements, notwithstanding the financial predicaments of the respondents. Individuals like the petitioner are dependent on a fixed, and often meager, income post-retirement. When they are deprived of their terminal benefits, they will struggle to cover basic life necessities. Further, > 2 AIR 1983 SC 130 W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 7 aging pensioners, like the petitioner, find it challenging to afford essential medical care and medications, especially in the absence of the financial buffer furnished by their terminal benefits and gratuity. Due to the relentless surge in the cost of living stemming from inflation, maintaining a previous standard of living becomes a strenuous endeavor for the pensioner. In that view of the matter, I hold that the reasons offered by the respondents for not disbursing the benefits cannot be accepted. In the instant case, the claim raised by the petitioner is for the disbursement of the provident fund closure and the staff welfare fund to the first petitioner. The egregiousness of the respondents’ omissions and the consequential suffering of retired employees is clearly violative of the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. In **Vijay L. Mahrotra v State of U.P.[3]** , the Apex Court had held that in case of an employee retiring after rendering service, it is expected that all the payment of the retiral benefits are paid on the date of retirement or soon thereafter. In view of the discussion above, the petitioners are entitled to succeed. There will be a direction to the respondents to disburse the Provident Fund closure due to the petitioners, with statutory interest until the date of payment, and the Staff Welfare Fund to the 1st petitioner within three months > 3 2001 (9) SCC 687 W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 8 from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. This writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- **RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, JUDGE** SMA W.P.(C) No. 24403 of 2023 9 ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 24403/2023`** ## **`PETITIONER EXHIBITS :-`** |**`Exhibit `**|**`1`**|**`TRUE`**|**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`RELIEVING`**|**`ORDER`**|**`NO.`**| |---|---|---|---|---|---| |||**`B1/001/2023/DO KKD DATED 30.04.2023`**|||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`2`**|**`TRUE`**|**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`RELIEVING`**|**`ORDER`**|**`NO.`**| |||**`B1/1003/22/KKD DATED 31.03.2023`**|||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`3`**|**`TRUE `**|**`COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO. B1/008/23/DO`**||| |||**`WND `**|**`DATED 31.01.2023`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`4`**|**`TRUE`**|**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`RELIEVING`**|**`ORDER`**|**`NO.`**| |||**`B2/1003/23/KKD DATED 30.04.2023`**|||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`5`**|**`TRUE `**|**`COPY OF THE RELIEVING ORDER NO. B1/001/23/DO`**||| |||**`KKD `**|**`DATED 28.02.2023`**||| |**`Exhibit `**|**`6`**|**`TRUE`**|**`COPY`**<br>**`OF`**<br>**`THE`**<br>**`JUDGMENT`**<br>**`DATED`**|**`27.09.2007`**|**`IN`**| |||**`W.P(C) NO. 28732/2007`**|||| ``` RESPONDENTANNEXURES:- AnnexureR-1(a)TruecopyoftheorderoftheDivisionBenchin W.ANo.611/2023 ```