IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 36383 of 2009(P)
1. K.SURENDRAN PILLAI,
... Petitioner
2. S.SAJAN,
3. S.SATHEENDRANATH,
4. G.SREERANJAN,
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :06/01/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
--------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) Nos.36383/09 & 36558/09
--------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 6thday of January, 2010
J U D G M E N T
Exts.P7 and P8 are challenged in WP(c).No.36383/09 and
Ext.P7 is challenged in WP(c).No.36558/09. Issue raised in these
writ petitions being common, reference is made to the facts as
stated in WP(c).No.36383/09.
2. Petitioners retired from the service of the respondent
Corporation between the period from February, 2007 to 31st May
2008. Subsequent to their retirement, by virtue of the settlement
entered into between the Management and the Unions on
28.11.2008, pay and other benefits were revised with
retrospective effect from 1.3.2006. Consequent on the said
development, Corporation issued Ext.P5 order dated 2.3.2009,
revising the pension and pensionary benefits. According to the
petitioners, substantial number of the beneficiaries who have
retired prior to them, were extended the benefit of Ext.P5, within
one month of issue of the said order. However, in respect of those
who have retired for the period from 1.3.2006 to April, 2009, the
benefits were not released.
WPC.No.36383/09 & anor.
:2 :
3. Complaining of delay in disbursing the benefits due to
them under Ext.P5, petitioners approached this court by filing WP
(c).No.27982/09. That writ petition was disposed of by judgment
dated 6.10.2009, directing the respondents to consider the claim
for the benefit of Ext.P5. Complaining that the judgment was not
complied with the petitioner again approached this court by filing
COC.No.1443/2009. During the pendency of the said petition, the
first respondent issued Ext.P7 order dated 25.11.2009, rejecting
the request and placing reliance on Ext.P8, an order issued on
19.11.2009, fixing a schedule for paying the benefits due under
Ext.P5 to the retired employees like the petitioners. It was on
receipt of Exts.P7 and P8 that this writ petition is filed
challenging the said orders.
4. Counsel for the petitioners contends that a section of the
beneficiaries of Ext.P5 having been paid the revised benefits,
non-payment or delay in payment of the benefits due, amounts
to discrimination in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. Yet another submission made by the counsel for the
petitioner is that as substantial part of the work for quantification
and disbursement of benefits have already been completed, there
WPC.No.36383/09 & anor.
:3 :
is absolutely no rationale in delaying the disbursement of benefits
in the manner as ordered in Ext.P8.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel
for the petitioner and also the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondents, who placed reliance on Ext.P8
referred to above. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners, who
being retired employees, are entitled to the benefit of Ext.P5. The
only question is whether the respondent can be faulted or this
court is to interfere on the ground that the benefit of Ext.P5 has
been inordinately delayed violating Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. Answer to this question depends upon the facts as
disclosed in Ext.P8. A reading of Ext.P8 order shows that there
are 5854 employees similar to the petitioners who have retired
from the service of the Corporation subsequent to 1.3.2006. It is
stated that in view of the paucity of manpower and
corresponding increase in the workload, there has been delay in
revising the benefits as ordered in Ext.P5. It is stated that despite
all this, with the available limited manpower, benefits have
already been quantified in respect of the employees who have
retired till November, 2006. It is stated that in view of the
WPC.No.36383/09 & anor.
:4 :
limitations in manpower and corresponding increase in the
workload and in order to ensure expeditious settlement of the
claims of the petitioners, Corporation has formulated a schedule
in terms of which the entire claims would be settled before 31st
December, 2010. The details of the schedule fixed is also given in
Ext.P8.
6. Having gone through Ext.P8 and in the absence of any
material on record to conclude that the reasons stated in Ext.P8
are either arbitrary or mala fide, I do not find any substance in
the submission made by the counsel for the petitioners. In this
situation the case does not call for interference in a
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. I am
also not impressed by the contention raised by the counsel for the
petitioner that there is a case of discrimination. As already seen,
the benefit of Ext.P5 is due to be paid to the entire beneficiaries.
In view of the limitations pointed out by the Corporation as above,
benefits could be disbursed only in stages and benefits have been
given to one section and in so far as others are concerned, they
are not denied payment but are being paid in the manner as
stated in Ext.P8. This does not disclose any case of
WPC.No.36383/09 & anor.
:5 :
discrimination.
Writ petitions fail and are dismissed.
(ANTONY DOMINIC)
JUDGE
vi/