IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 2504 of 2005(W)
1. M.A.KUNJU MOHAMMED, RETIRED SERGEANT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.KRB.KAIMAL (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :04/02/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 2504 of 2005
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 4th February, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner entered service of Kerala State Road Transport
Corporation as a Sergeant on 24-8-1978. Prior to joining the Kerala
State Road Transport Corporation, the petitioner put in service in the
CRPF for the period from 1-7-1964 to 26-6-1976. He retired from the
service of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation on 31-1-2000.
By Ext. P2, retirement benefits were sanctioned to him. But, in the
same, the service put in by him in the CRPF was not reckoned for the
purpose of calculation of retirement benefits. According to him,
going by Exts.P.3 and P4 Government Orders, service put in CRPF
qualifies as qualifying service for the purpose of pension. The
petitioner would submit that in view of the fact that the Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation is following KSR for the purpose of
pension to its employees, Government Orders referred to above as
also Rules 8, 10 and 11 of the Kerala Service Rules and the
Government decisions under the same are also applicable to the
employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. Going
thereby, the petitioner is entitled to get his CRPF service reckoned for
the purpose of retirement benefits, is the contention of the petitioner.
The petitioner therefore filed a representation Ext. P5 before the
Managing Director of the Corporation. By Ext. P6 judgment, this
Court directed the Managing Director to consider that
representation. By Ext. P7, that representation was rejected on the
ground that the Government Orders relied upon by the petitioner have
not been implemented in the Corporation. The petitioner’s further
representation in this matter was rejected by Ext. P9. The petitioner
is challenging Exts.P7 and P9 seeking the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside Exts. P7
W.P.C. No. 2504/2005. -: 2 :-
and P9.
ii) issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent to consider Ext.
P5 representation and to issue orders granting revised
pensionary benefits reckoning the service in the CRPF also as
qualifying service, and to disburse the arrears of pensionary
benefits such as monthly pension, Commuted Pension and
D.C.R.G.”
2. I have considered the contentions of the petitioner.
3. Kerala State Road Transport Corporation is an autonomous
body. Rules and orders applicable to the Government servants are
not automatically applicable to the employees of the Corporation
unless specifically adopted by the Corporation in that regard. The
mere fact that the employees of the Corporation are paid pension in
accordance with K.S.R does not ipso facto mean that all orders issued
by the Government in respect of pension are applicable to the
Corporation, unless the Corporation adopts those Government Orders
also. The employees of the Corporation cannot seek benefits under
those Government Orders unless, of course, the Corporation has
adopted the KSR and all other Government Orders issued under the
same. The petitioner has not been able to satisfy me that the
Corporation has done so. In the above circumstances, the petitioner
is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/