IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
OP.No. 4000 of 2001(A)
1. A.SAINULABDIN
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.S.R.T.C
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.S.MOHAMMED AL RAFI
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :29/01/2009
O R D E R
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
==================
O.P.Nos.4000 & 5281 of 2001
==================
Dated this the 29th day of January, 2009
J U D G M E N T
O.P.No. 4000/2001:
The petitioner in this original petition retired as a Chief Traffic
Officer from the Kerala Road Transport Corporation, on 31.3.1997.
After retirement of the petitioner, by a settlement dated 13.4.1999,
the pay of the employees of the KSRTC had been revised with effect
from 1.3.1997. Pursuant to the same, Ext.P1 order was issued by the
Corporation, in which clause 8 thereof stipulated that pensionary
benefits of those persons who retired on or after 1.3.1997 shall be as
per the revised pay. The petitioner was not paid arrears of salary and
retirement benefits on the basis of the revised pay. This Court, by
Ext.P2 judgment, directed the Corporation to consider the claim of the
petitioner in that regard. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P3 order has been
passed, in which the petitioner’s claim has been rejected on the
ground that the Corporation has given monetary benefits of the
agreement to the higher division officers only from 1.11.1999 and
there is only notional benefit upto 1.11.1999. Exts.P3 is under
challenge before me. The petitioner is seeking the following reliefs in
this original petition:
“i) to call for the records leading to Ext.P3 and quash the same by
issue of writ of certiorari.
o.p.4000/01 & cc 2
ii) a writ of mandamus or writ of similar nature or order or direction
commanding the respondents to sanction and disburse entire
revised pensionary benefits viz., revised DCRG, revised commuted
value of pension etc. and arrears of pay and pension with penal
interest as expeditiously as possible.
iii) to declare that petitioner is entitled to get revised pensionary
benefits.”
2. The contention of the petitioner is that the validity of the
decision regarding the higher division officers has been the subject
matter of a writ petition and a writ appeal (W.A.No. 3146/2001) before
this Court. The challenge against the orders denying monetary
benefits of pay revision with effect from 1.3.1997 has been upheld by
this Court in that writ appeal. Although the Corporation filed SLPs,
viz., SLP No.448 to 454 of 2002 against the judgment and obtained
an interim order dated 11.1.2002, it is admitted that those SLPs have
already been disposed as infructuous. The petitioner, therefore,
submits that in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court and
the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner has become eligible
for all monetary benefits in respect of pay revision and consequent
revision of retirement benefits with effect from 1.3.1997 including
monetary benefits.
3. Although a counter affidavit and an additional counter
affidavit has been filed, it is not disputed before me that the writ
appeal judgment holds the field now. If that be so, Ext.P3 order relying
o.p.4000/01 & cc 3
on the decision which has been reversed in that writ appeal, is
unsustainable. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is quashed. It is declared that the
petitioner is entitled to monetary benefits of pay revision with effect
from 1.3.1997 and the revision of retirement benefits in accordance
with Ext.P1 order. The petitioner now submits that the petitioner has
been granted DCRG and commuted value of pension. In the above
circumstances, this original petition is disposed of with a direction to
the Corporation to pay all monetary benefits due to the petitioner on
account of the pay revision, with effect from 1.3.1997, as expeditiously
as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of
a certified copy of this judgment.
O.P.No.5281/2001:
In this case the petitioner retired from the service of the
Corporation as Inspector on 30.9.1998. The case of the petitioner in
this case is similar to that of the petitioner in O.P.No.4000/2001. That
being so, he has also become entitled to all monetary benefits on the
basis of the pay revision orders with effect from 1.3.1997. The
petitioner further submits that alleging excess payment to the
petitioner, his pension for the month of January 2001 has been
withheld. According to the petitioner, even if excess amounts have
been paid, if the arrears of pay revision and consequent revision of
o.p.4000/01 & cc 4
retirement benefits are sanctioned, the alleged excess amount paid
can be adjusted against the same. Accordingly, this original petition is
disposed of in terms of the judgment in O.P.No.4000/2001 with a
further direction that if the excess amount has not already been
recovered from the petitioner, the same shall be adjusted against the
arrears due to the petitioner on account of the above directions.
The original petitions are disposed of as above.
Sd/-
sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
///True copy///
P.A. to Judge
S.SIRI JAGAN, J.
===============
O.P.Nos.4000 (A)&
5281 (D) of 2001
===============
J U D G M E N T
29th January, 2009