IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2204 of 2011(A)
1. V.V.INDIRA,
... Petitioner
2. V.A.MOHAMED, S/O.ABDULLA,
3. K.R.RADHAKRISHNAN,
4. P.R.VIJAYAN,
5. K.K.GOPINATHAN,
6. T.L.RAJAGOPALAN,
7. P.P.ABDUL KAREEM,
8. K.V.MADHUSOODANAN PILLAI,
9. S.A.ABDUL GAFOOR,
10. P.M.CHACKO, S/O.MATHAI,
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. THE MECHANICAL ENGINEER,
4. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
5. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
6. THE ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.JUSTINE (KARIPAT)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :21/01/2011
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
---------------------------------
W.P.(C).No.2204 OF 2011
---------------------------------
Dated 21st January, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the retirees from the Kerala State Road
Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). On 13.4.1999,
bipartite settlement of pay revision agreement was executed in the
Corporation with retrospective effect from 1.3.1997. The contention of
the petitioners is that in terms of the provisions under the said
settlement, they are entitled to get the pay revision benefits from
1.3.1997. The entitlement of persons like the petitioners to such pay
revision benefits in terms of the bipartite settlement dated 13.4.1999
came up for consideration before this Court in a number of writ
petitions. In fact, I also had an occasion to consider such an issue in
W.P.(C).No.34325 of 2010 and connected matters. Relying on the
earlier decisions of this Court, appropriate directions were issued for
disbursement of pay revision benefits flowing from the above
mentioned bipartite settlement to the petitioners therein. The
contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the same
benefits in terms of Ext.P11 judgment of this Court which was virtually
affirmed by the dismissal of SLP No.27713/2008 as is obvious from
W.P.(C) No.2204/2011 2
Ext.P12. In fact, all these aspects were considered in W.P.(C)
No.34325 of 2010 and connected matters.
The learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondents would submit that the entitlement of the petitioners to the
benefit of 1997 pay revision based on the above mentioned bipartite
settlement could not be disputed in view of the earlier decisions on the
issue and therefore, it would be disbursed to the petitioners in terms
of directions in W.P.(C).No.34325 of 2010 and connected matters. In
view of the said position obtained in this case, this writ petition is
disposed of holding that the petitioners are entitled to the arrears of
1997 pay revision effected in the Corporation from 1.3.1997 till
31.10.1999. The arrears, on account of such pay revision, shall be
disbursed to the petitioners within a period of six months from the
date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that in
case of failure on the part of the respondents to disburse the amount
within the stipulated time, it would carry interest at the rate of 8.5%
per annum.
Sd/-
C.T. RAVIKUMAR
Judge
TKS