IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA No. 1308 of 2007()
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Petitioner
2. THE DISTRICT TRANSPORT OFFICER,
3. THE WORKS MANAGER,
Vs
1. K.CHANDRAMOHANAN, S/O.KESAVAN,
... Respondent
2. KERALA STATE TRANSPORT WORKERS
3. T.S.SAHADEVAN, MECHANIC (UPHOLSTER),
For Petitioner :SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, K.S.R.T.C.
For Respondent :SRI.C.A.CHACKO
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.H.L.DATTU
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.T.SANKARAN
Dated :07/06/2007
O R D E R
H.L.DATTU, C.J. & K.T.SANKARAN,J.
----------------------------------------------------
W.A. NO. 1308 OF 2007
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 7th June, 2007
JUDGMENT
H.L.DATTU, C.J.
The Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short)
has filed this writ appeal being aggrieved by the orders passed by the
learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.33389 of 2006 dated 1st January, 2007.
By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge has only directed the
appellants to realize an amount of Rs.42,162/- from the benefits of
Sri.K.Chandramohanan who was an employee of the Corporation and pay
the same to the Kerala State Transport Workers’ Co-operative Society.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit
that the retirement benefits are given on the basis of a scheme by which
pensionary benefits are disbursed according to seniority, as directed in
W.A.No.289 of 2001. Therefore, a submission is made that the learned
Judge could not have directed them to pay a sum of Rs.42,162/- from the
pensionary benefits payable to the writ petitioner within a particular time
frame.
W.A.NO.1308 OF 2007
:: 2 ::
3. This Court in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction, inorder to
come to the aid of a needy person, may ask an authority, a Corporation, a
Board etc. , to pay certain amounts out of turn. If such directions are issued,
it cannot be said that it is in violation of the scheme framed by the
Corporation. In that view of the matter, we do not see any error in the order
passed by the learned single Judge calling for our interference in the writ
appeal. Accordingly, the appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected.
However, appellants are granted one more month’s time from today to
comply with the orders and directions issued by the learned single Judge in
the writ petition.
Ordered accordingly.
(H.L.DATTU)
Chief Justice
(K.T.SANKARAN)
Judge
ahz/