IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 5676 of 2010(H)
1. V.J.THOMAS, TICKET ISSUER CUM MASTER,
... Petitioner
2. M.REGHUNANDANAN, BOAT DRIVER,
3. T.C.BABU, BOAT LASCAR,
4. K.J.ANTONY, BOAT LASCAR,
5. V.G.SEBASTIAN, BARGE SYRANG,
6. T.N.SARATHCHANDRA GHOSH, BOAT DRIVER,
7. K.K.PUSHPAN, BOAT LASCAR,
8. K.S.SOMAN, BARGE DRIVER,
9. P.R.AMSAPPAN, BARGE DRIVER,
10. T.D.MATHEW, MECHANIC GRADE-1,
11. P.BAHULEYAN, TICKET ISSUER CUM MASTER,
12. MATHEW JACOB, MECHANIC GRADE-II,
13. A.C.ANTONY, WORKSHOP HELPER,
14. TOMY D'SILVA, BOAT /BARGE ELECTRICIAN,
15. K.Y.JOHN, BOAT LASCAR,
16. S.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI,
17. C.V.JOY, BOAT SYRANG,
18. K.B.CHANDRAN, BOAT SYRANG,
19. K.VASU, BOAT LASCAR,
20. K.P.RAMESAN, BOAT LASCAR,
21. N.K.SUGATHAN, BOAT LASCAR,
22. M.R.BABU, BARGE DRIVER,
23. K.A.JOSEPH, BARGE DRIVER,
24. K.V.PETER, MECHANIC,
25. T.G.GOPI, BOAT LASCAR,
26. N.S.PRATHAPAN, BARGE DRIVER,
27. M.V.SIDDHARTHAN, BARGE SYRANG,
28. P.L.CHACKO, BARGE SYRANG,
29. V.ARAVINDAKSHAN, BOAT LASCAR,
30. K.P.JOHN, BOAT DRIVER,
31. M.A.VARGHESE, BARGE SYRANG,
32. V.K.PONNAPPAN, STATION MASTER,
33. K.K.ABDUL GAFOOR,
34. V.N.RAJENDRAPRASAD, BARGE SYRANG,
35. A.K.MOHAMMED ALI, ACCOUNTANT,
36. K.P.PANKAJAKSHAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
37. G.RAJAN, JUNIOR ASSISTANT,
38. M.V.MANOJ, ASSISTANT MECHANICAL ENGINEER
39. T.J.GOPALAN, TICKET ISSUER CUM MASTER,
40. C.P.DARWIN, WORKSHOP HELPER,
41. K.K.BALACHANDRAN, TICKER ISSUER CUM
Vs
1. KERALA SHIPPING AND INLAND NAVIGATION
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.K.R.KURUP
For Respondent :SRI.V.J.MATHEW,SC,KSINC(KERALA SHIPPING
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :16/03/2010
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
--------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) NO. 5676 OF 2010
--------------------------------------------
Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are employees of the first respondent – Kerala
Shipping and Inland Navigation Corporation Ltd. Admittedly, the age of
superannuation in respect of the employees under the first respondent has
been enhanced from 55 years to 58 years. The said decision to enhance the
age of retirement was challenged before this Court. As per Ext.P1
judgment dated 3.7.2007, this Court held that the employees of the
Corporation would be entitled to continue in service till the last day of the
month in which they attain the age of 58 years. The first respondent did
not prefer any appeal against Ext.P1 judgment. However, the State
unsuccessfully attempted an appeal. Thereafter, the State preferred a
Special Leave Petition against the judgment of the Division Bench
affirming Ext.P1 judgment. Subsequently, the Writ Petitions filed by some
employees working under the first respondent, which were not taken up
while rendering Ext.P1 judgment, came up before this Court. Naturally,
the said Writ Petitions were also allowed. Aggrieved by the judgment
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28430 of 2006 and
connected cases, the State preferred W.A. No.2452 of 2007 and connected
W.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010 2
appeals, which were disposed of as per Ext.P4 judgment. A similar
decision has been rendered by a Division Bench in Ext. P5 judgment in
W.A. No. 3468 of 2007. The limited prayer of the petitioners in this Writ
Petition is for a direction to the respondents to disburse to them the wages
in terms of Exts.P4 and P5 judgments subject to the same conditions.
2. The learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent, however,
strongly opposed the prayer of the petitioners. Admittedly, Exts.P4 and P5
judgments were rendered after hearing the first respondent. It is obvious
from the said judgments that the Writ Appeals were preferred by the State
and the first respondent did not file any appeal challenging Ext.P1
judgment. But, the first respondent has filed Special Leave Petitions
against Exts.P4 and P5 judgments. It is fairly admitted by the learned
Standing Counsel for the first respondent that no order of stay has been
passed by the Honourable Apex Court in the said Special Leave Petitions
with respect to the operation and implementation of Exts.P4 and P5. In the
context of the contentions, it is relevant to note the reliefs granted as per
Ext.P4, the relevant portion of which reads thus:
“………… In the meanwhile, in case the writ
petitioners give an undertaking to the Corporation
that in the event of the Supreme Court notW.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010 3
granting any benefits in respect of the service
rendered by the writ petitioners after they attain
55 years, the emoluments that they receive in
excess of the wages now received can be adjusted
against the DCRG payable to them, the
Corporation will disburse the actual wages in the
scale of pay attached to them without any delay.”
3. It is thus evident that even if such similar relief is granted to the
petitioners herein, that would not in any way adversely affect the interest
of the first respondent. It is also evident that some similarly situated
employees under the first respondent are enjoying the benefits of actual
wages. Therefore, there is no reason to discriminate the petitioners who
are similarly situated employees. The petitioners submit that they will
abide by the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the pending cases
filed by the first respondent against Exts.P4 and P5 judgments and also
the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the State against Ext.P2 judgment.
This submission made on behalf of the petitioners is recorded.
4. In the circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the
following directions:
During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions referred to
above, if the petitioners give an undertaking to the first respondent –
Corporation that in the event of the Supreme Court declining to grant any
W.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010 4
benefits in respect of the service rendered by the petitioners in W.P.(C)
No.28430 of 2006 after they attain the age of 55 years, the petitioners
would not claim any benefit merely on account of their continuance in
service beyond the age of 55 years and further that in such eventuality, the
emoluments received by them in excess of the wages received for the
service rendered after crossing the age of 55 years can be adjusted against
the DCRG payable to them. It is made clear that the petitioners in this
Writ Petition will be entitled only to the benefits, if any, granted by the
Apex Court in the cases referred to above, in the case of similarly situated
persons. It is further made clear that in case the amounts payable to each
of the petitioners towards DCRG reaches the eligible and entitled
amount, the first respondent will be at liberty to pay to the petitioners
thereafter only at the rate payable to casual employees till they attain the
age of 58 years, subject to the result of the Special Leave Petitions referred
to earlier.
The Writ Petition is disposed of as above.
(C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE)
sp/
W.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010 5
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
W.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010
JUDGMENT
16th March, 2010
W.P.(C) NO. 5676/2010 6