IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2315 of 2008()
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPN.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. V.RAVI, RETIRED DRIVER FROM
... Respondent
2. THE SECRETARY, KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY
3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER (HRM), KSEB,
For Petitioner :SHRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :18/01/2010
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ.
------------------------------
W.A.NO.2315/2008
------------------------------
Dated this, the 18th day of January, 2010
JUDGMENT
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The 1st respondent in the Writ Petition, the Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “KSRTC”)
is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein was the writ
petitioner.
2. The brief facts of the case are the following:
The 1st respondent had worked in the KSRTC as driver from
16.6.1981 to 14.10.1994. Thereafter, he was advised for
appointment by the Public Service Commission as Driver in the
Kerala State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as
“KSEB”). Therefore, he resigned from the KSRTC and joined the
KSEB on 8.12.1994. He retired from service on 28.2.2005. The
KSEB did not reckon his past service in the KSRTC for the
purpose of grant of pensionary benefits. As per the relevant
orders in force, if the KSRTC remits the pro-rata pensionary
WA No.2315/2008
– 2 –
benefits for the service rendered by the 1st respondent in the
KSRTC, the KSEB will count that service also for pensionary
benefits. So, the 1st respondent moved the KSRTC for the said
purpose. But, his representation was rejected by Ext.P11
communication dated 27.07.2007. So, the Writ Petition was
filed, challenging Ext.P11 and seeking consequential reliefs.
3. The relevant portion of Ext.P11 reads as follows:
“In this context I may inform that you have left
the Corporation and joined in K.S.E.B on 7/12/94
without submitting resignation letter to KSRTC. The
Corporation came to know about your resignation
only when you filed the above WP(C) before the
Hon’ble High Court of Kerala. The K.S.R.T.C can
consider your request for terminal benefits only if
you submit your resignation letter to the Corporation
in the prescribed proforma and clearing liabilities, if
any, outstanding against you including cost of
damage amounting to Rs.24,420/- in connection with
an accident dtd. 15/9/94.
However an amount of Rs.13,817/- has been
already paid to you towards P.F closure with interest
in view of his prayer before the Hon’ble High Court to
that effect. As per rule ’29’ Part III KSR resignation
WA No.2315/2008
– 3 –
of the service entails forfeiture of past service.
Hence you are not eligible for service Gratuity.”
Going by the above quoted portion of the communication, it
would appear that according to the KSRTC, the 1st respondent
has not properly resigned from it and therefore, he should
submit a proper resignation letter. He should also remit an
amount of Rs.24,420/-, which is the cost of damages suffered
by the KSRTC, arising out of an accident involving the vehicle
driven by him. The last part of the above quoted portion of the
impugned communication would show that since he has
resigned from the KSRTC, his past service is forfeited. Mention
is made of refund of PF closure amount also.
4. Regarding resignation, the KSRTC cannot blow hot and
cold by the same breath. It says, the 1st respondent has not
resigned properly and therefore, he should submit a resignation
letter. Later, it is said, since he has resigned, his past service is
forfeited. The KSRTC has already stopped the practice of
recovering damages from the drivers of its vehicles to recoup
the amount it has to pay in the claims made before the Motor
WA No.2315/2008
– 4 –
Accidents Claims Tribunals. Therefore, there is no justification
for the KSRTC to insist that the 1st respondent/writ petitioner
should pay Rs.24,420/-. In view of Rule 29(b) read with Note 2
under Rule 11 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, there is no
bar in reckoning the service rendered by the 1st respondent in
the KSRTC. The stand of the appellant that the said service will
stand forfeited by reason of his resignation, is plainly untenable.
In view of the above position, we find no reason to
interfere with the judgment under appeal. Accordingly, the Writ
Appeal is dismissed.
K. Balakrishnan Nair,
Judge.
C.T.Ravikumar,
Judge.
nm.