IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 4297 of 2011(J)
1. S.SUCHETHA KUMARI,
... Petitioner
2. N.THARA,
3. M.VASANTHAKUMARI AMMA,
4. K.SUSY MATHEW,
5. B.CHANDRIKA DEVI,
6. B.CHANDRAKUMARI THANKACHY,
7. A.CHANDRAMOHINI,
8. G.LALITHAMBAL,
9. B.MOLLY JOHN,
Vs
1. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.K.P.RAJEEVAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR
Dated :10/02/2011
O R D E R
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
----------------------------
W.P.(C). No.4297 of 2011
----------------------------
Dated this the 10th day of February, 2011
JUDGMENT
The petitioners are the retirees from the Kerala State
Road Transport Corporation (for short ‘the Corporation’). On
13.4.1999, bipartite settlement on pay revision was executed
between the Corporation and its employees 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 retirees 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.P2
judgment of this Court which was virtually affirmed by the
W.P.(C). No.4297 of 2011
2
dismissal of SLP No.27713/2008 as is obvious from Ext.P3. In
fact, all these aspects were considered in W.P.(C)
No.34325/2010. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
respondent 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.34325/2010 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 in terms of the bipartite settlement dated
13.04.1999. 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 respondent to
disburse the amount within the stipulated time, it would carry
interest at the rate of 8.5%.
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE
rkc