{"id":39524,"date":"2007-07-09T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-07-08T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007"},"modified":"2015-08-22T17:49:03","modified_gmt":"2015-08-22T12:19:03","slug":"chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","title":{"rendered":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: P Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  2916 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nCHAIRMAN & M.D., K.S.R.T.C.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nK.O. VARGHESE & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/07\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nH.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T <\/p>\n
CIVIL APPEAL NO(s).   2916                 OF 2007
\n[@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 19383-19390 of 2004]<\/p>\n
P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tHeard learned counsel on all sides.\n<\/p>\n
1.\t\tThis appeal by the Kerala State Road Transport
\nCorporation, hereinafter referred to as KSRTC, challenges the
\ndecision of the High Court of Kerala in a series of Writ Appeals
\nrendered on 24.3.2004 pursuant to an order of remand made
\nby this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6651-6654 of 2000 and the
\nconnected cases.  The decision remanding, was rendered on
\n17.4.2003 and the same is reported as Kerala State Road
\nTransport Corporation Vs. K.O. Varghese & Ors.   [(2003) 12
\nSCC 293].\n<\/p>\n
2.\t\tKSRTC is a Corporation established under the Road
\nTransport Corporation Act, 1950, hereinafter called, “the Act”.
\nThe Corporation was formed on 15.3.1965.  On 22.3.1965, the
\nemployees of the Transport Department of the Government of
\nKerala were absorbed in KSRTC.  KSRTC became functional
\nwith effect from 1.4.1965.  In the general instructions issued
\non 22.3.1965 in exercise of power under Section 34(1) of the
\nAct, the Government while transferring the existing transport
\nundertakings and their assets and liabilities to KSRTC, also
\nmade applicable to it, all orders and notifications thereunto
\nissued by the Government, which were not inconsistent with
\nthe provisions of the Act, until their alteration or repeal.  Part
\nII thereof dealt with the staff.  It would be profitable to set
\ndown paragraphs 10 to 12 of that Order at this stage:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“10.\t\tAll persons employed by
\nGovernment in the State Transport
\nDepartment and appointed substantively to a
\npermanent post in that Department who would
\nhave continued in the service of Government
\nbut for the transfer of the management of the
\nState Undertaking to the Corporation, shall be
\ntreated as permanently transferred to the
\nCorporation for appointment under Section
\n14(2) of the Road Transport Corporation Act,
\n1950 (Central Act, LXIV of 1950) and on such
\ntransfer they will be deemed to have vacated
\noffice under Government and to have been
\noffered and to have accepted employment
\nunder the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tProvided that the provision shall not apply to
\npersons, if any, appointed in the State
\nTransport Department to the posts of Director
\nof Transport and Chief Mechanical Engineer,
\nand such persons shall continue as
\nsupernumeraries under Government service
\nuntil further orders.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t11.\t\tThe Corporation shall guarantee
\ncontinued employment to all such personnel
\nas are transferred for service under the
\nCorporation, under the same terms and
\nconditions of service as were applicable to
\nthem under Government immediately before
\nsuch transfer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t12.\t\tThe Corporation shall pay to the
\nemployees so transferred their pension,
\ngratuity and provident fund according to the
\nrelevant rules, notifications and orders of
\nGovernment in force and applicable to them
\nimmediately before such transfer as and when
\nsuch benefits accrue.”\n<\/p>\n
In paragraph 15, it was provided that the past services of the
\ntransferred employees with the Government, would count for
\nthe purposes of promotion, leave, pension and such other
\nbenefits.  Thus the transferred employees who retired from
\nKSRTC were eligible for pension in terms of their conditions of
\nabsorption.  But in terms of clause 10 they ceased to be
\nemployees of the Government.\n<\/p>\n
3.\t\tOn 27.3.1984, the Government of Kerala authorized
\nKSRTC to pay pension to its employees as per Kerala Service
\nRules, hereinafter referred to as “KSR”.  The said
\ncommunication is on the following terms.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“In continuation of the letter cited
\nabove, I am directed to convey the Government
\ndecision authorizing the KSRTC to pay pension
\nto its employees as per KSR and introduce GPF
\ninstead of contributory provident fund with
\neffect from 1.4.1984.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe KSRTC will obtain written
\nundertaking from each employee to refund the
\nmanagement share of contribution to GPF as
\nwell as family pension fund hitherto made in
\nconsultation with the Regional Provident Fund
\nCommissioner.”\n<\/p>\n
On 5.5.1984, an order was issued by the Managing Director of
\nKSRTC that all Corporation employees who retire after
\n1.4.1984 would be paid pension subject to the employees
\nfulfilling the stipulations therein.\n<\/p>\n
4.\t\tThen came the recommendations of the IV Pay
\nCommission and its acceptance by the State Government.  But
\ndue to its precarious financial position, the Board of Directors
\nof KSRTC took a decision on 19.3.1986 to implement only
\nsome of the recommendations with effect from 1.11.1986 and
\nan order in that regard was also issued.  On 2.2.1990, a
\nMemorandum of Settlement was drawn up, based on the
\nunderstanding arrived at between the management and the
\nrecognized Labour Unions.  As per that memorandum, the
\nbenefits of the settlement were postponed till September 1991.
\nThe benefits were thereafter made available.\n<\/p>\n
5.\t\tThis was followed by the report of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission and the acceptance by the Government of its
\nrecommendations.  The benefits relating to pension and allied
\nmatters were made applicable to persons who retired from
\nservice prior to 1988 and the wage revision was given effect to
\nfrom 2.2.1990.  The financial condition of KSRTC was
\nprecarious.  On 17.5.1991, KSRTC wrote to the Government
\nseeking its approval for implementation of the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in the
\nCorporation.  This was followed by letters detailing the
\nfinancial crisis faced by the Corporation.  Ultimately, by letter
\ndated 24.9.1992, the State Government advised KSRTC that it
\nmay defer for better times, the implementation.  We quote the
\nletter hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“Sir,
\n\tSub:\tKSRTC  Recommendations of
\n\t\t\tthe 5th Kerala Pay Commission
\nrelating to pension and allied
\nmatters  reg.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tRef.: \tYour Lr. No. PLA 10\/32886\/90
\ndated 17.5.1991.\n<\/p>\n
\tReferring to the above, I am directed to
\ninform you that since the financial position of
\nKSRTC is not sound this may be deferred for
\nbetter times.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the reliefs regarding revision of pensionary benefits as
\nrecommended was not immediately implemented.\n<\/p>\n
6.\t\tSome of the employees of KSRTC filed a writ petition
\nin the High Court challenging this non-implementation.  The
\nHigh Court allowed the writ petition, O.P. 7176 of 1993 and
\ndirected KSRTC to pay the arrears of the enhanced Dearness
\nAllowance from 1.7.1991 till 31.10.1991.  KSRTC appealed to
\nthe Division Bench in W.A. 890 of 1993.  An interim order of
\nstay of the directions issued by the single judge was also
\nobtained.  Meanwhile, in another writ petition, O.P. No. 13233
\nof 1992, another single judge directed the Government to take
\na policy decision on whether, the benefits of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission should be extended to the pensioners of KSRTC.\n<\/p>\n
7.\t\tPursuant to the above direction and in compliance
\nwith it, the State Government by letter dated 16.5.1995
\ninformed KSRTC as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The matter has been examined by the
\nGovernment in detail and as the financial
\nposition of KSRTC is not sound, it has been
\ndecided that grant of benefits of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission to the pensioners of KSRTC may
\nbe deferred for better times.”\n<\/p>\n
Thus, the policy decision taken by the State Government was
\nto direct KSRTC not to give the benefit of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission until better times.  Meanwhile, the writ appeals
\nfiled by KSRTC were dismissed by the Division Bench which
\nalso allowed appeals filed by some of the writ petitioners.
\nKSRTC challenged those decisions before this Court by way of
\nSpecial Leave to Appeal.  This Court entertained the appeals
\nand by the judgment dated 17.4.2003, set aside the judgment
\nof the High Court and directed the High Court to reexamine
\nthe question.  This Court noticed that the High Court has not
\nconsidered what exactly was the effect of Part III of KSR being
\nmade applicable to KSRTC and whether the letter dated
\n16.5.1995 was in fact a direction in terms of Section 34 of the
\nAct.  This Court therefore directed the High Court to
\nreconsider those aspects and also consider the question
\nwhether KSRTC as a statutory Corporation, did not have the
\npower to fix a date different from the date fixed for the
\ngovernment employees for implementation of the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding
\npensionary benefits and wage revision.\n<\/p>\n
8.\t\tBack in the High Court, the Division Bench held
\nthat the adoption of Part III of KSR by KSRTC, was an exercise
\nof legislation by reference and if and when the government
\nadopted the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission in
\nrespect of its employees governed by Part III of KSR, KSRTC
\nwas also obliged to implement the recommendation in respect
\nof its employees with effect from the same date.  The Division
\nBench further held that the letter of the Government dated
\n24.9.1992, was not a direction in terms of Section 34 of the
\nAct.  The High Court also held that KSRTC did not have the
\ncompetence to fix a different cut-off date in respect of its
\nemployees.  It ultimately held that in the absence of any
\nspecific regulation being framed by KSRTC and in the absence
\nof a direction under Section 34 of the Act by the State
\nGovernment to KSRTC to fix a different cut-off date, KSRTC
\nwas bound to implement the recommendation of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission and to grant revised pensionary benefits and
\ndearness relief to all its employees whether originally
\ntransferred from the government department or subsequently
\nemployed by KSRTC itself, on a par with the government
\nemployees.  Thus, the appeals filed by the employees were
\nallowed and those filed by KSRTC were dismissed.  It is this
\ndecision rendered after remand, that is challenged again in
\nthese appeals.\n<\/p>\n
9.\t\tLearned counsel for the KSRTC, the appellant,
\nsubmitted that the High Court was in error in holding that
\nKSRTC, an autonomous corporation, was not entitled to fix a
\ndate of its own for implementation of revised pensionary
\nbenefits as per the recommendation of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission.  He further submitted that the financial position
\nof KSRTC was precarious and in the face of that fact, the High
\nCourt was in error in compelling KSRTC to implement the
\nrecommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission regarding
\npension and dearness allowance and a direction that would
\nlead to the winding up of the corporation itself, should not
\nhave been issued in such a casual manner.  Learned counsel
\nfurther submitted that the High Court had earlier, on
\n6.3.1995, directed the government to take a policy decision
\nwhich would obviously be only one in terms of Section 34 of
\nthe Act and pursuant to that direction, the government had
\ntaken a decision and conveyed it to the corporation by its
\ncommunication, letter No.11969\/L3\/95\/PW&T dated
\n16.5.1995 and this communication, in the context, can only
\nbe understood as a direction under Section 34 of the Act.  The
\nHigh Court has not properly adverted to or considered the
\neffect of this communication.  Learned counsel submitted that
\nPart III of KSR had only been adopted for KSRTC or by KSRTC
\nand it was neither a case of legislation by incorporation nor a
\ncase of legislation by reference.  For either of that to occur,
\nthere must be two legislations or enactments, one of which
\nmust adopt the other.  Thus, the High Court was wrong in
\nholding that the adoption of Part III of KSR in KSRTC was a
\nlegislation by reference.  Learned counsel submitted that there
\nwas no provision in Part III fixing any date for revising pension
\nor for the grant of it.\n<\/p>\n
10.\t\tIn answer, learned counsel for the employees of
\nKSRTC submitted that as per the earlier direction of the State
\nGovernment, Part III of KSR had been made applicable to
\nemployees of KSRTC and once Part III of KSR was made
\napplicable, the employees were entitled to pensionary benefits
\nas provided therein and that would include the right to
\nenhanced pension as and when they are enhanced.  Right to
\npension included the right to it from a given date.  Here, the
\ndate was the one adopted by the State Government.  He
\nsubmitted that the direction issued by the Government dated
\n27.3.1984 authorizing KSRTC to pay pension clearly justified
\nthis position.  He also submitted that the High Court was
\ncorrect in holding that the communication dated 24.9.1992,
\nwas not a direction under Section 34 of the Act.  He pointed
\nout that no formalities were complied with and the direction
\nwas not even notified.  It was merely a reply to a letter sent by
\nKSRTC.  The communication dated 27.3.1984 would be a
\ndirection in terms of Section 34 of the Act and KSRTC was
\nbound to pay any enhancement as and when it is given by the
\nState Government to its employees.  Counsel representing
\nthose employees who were originally employees of the
\nGovernment added that those employees could not be
\nprejudiced by not giving them the same benefits as employees
\nof the Government in view of the order of their absorption in
\nKSRTC dated 22.3.1965.\n<\/p>\n
11.\t\tBefore going into the other questions, we think it
\nproper to consider whether in the circumstances of the case
\nthere has been a direction by the State Government in terms
\nof Section 34 of the Act.  Section 34 reads:\n<\/p>\n
“34. Direction by the State Government.
\n(1)  The State Government may, after
\nconsultation with a Corporation established by
\nsuch Government, give to the Corporation
\ngeneral instructions to be followed by the
\nCorporation, and such instructions may
\ninclude directions relating to the recruitment,
\nconditions of service and training of its
\nemployees, wages to be paid to the employees,
\nreserves to be maintained by it and disposal of
\nits profits or stocks.\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tIn the exercise of its powers and
\nperformance of its duties under this Act, the
\nCorporation shall not depart from any general
\ninstructions issued under sub-section (1)
\nexcept with the previous permission of the
\nState Government.”\n<\/p>\n
This Court has earlier indicated that a direction issued under
\nSection 34 by the Government is a general direction and the
\nGovernment ought not to issue a specific direction with regard
\nto any particular case.  (See Mysore State Road Transport
\nCorporation Vs. Babajan Conductor & another [(1977) 2
\nS.C.R. 925].  This Court has also held that until regulations
\nare made with the previous sanction of the State Government,
\nthe directions given under Section 34 in respect of conditions
\nof service have got the force of law (See General Manager,
\nMysore State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Devraj Urs .
\n& another [(1976) 2 S.C.C. 862].  It is in this context that the
\ncommunication issued by the State Government to KSRTC in
\nrespect of implementation of the recommendations of the Fifth
\nPay Commission  regarding pensionary benefits has to be
\nconsidered.\n<\/p>\n
12.\t\tIt is clear from the communication dated 24.9.1992
\nthat KSRTC had written a letter to the Government dated
\n17.5.1991 regarding the payment of additional benefits based
\non the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission.  The
\nGovernment by that letter dated 24.9.1992, informed KSRTC
\nthat since the financial position of KSRTC was not sound, the
\nproposal may be deferred for better times.  It was in that
\ncontext that writ petitions were filed in the High Court by
\ncertain employees of the Corporation.  The High Court by
\njudgment dated 6.3.1995 noticed the stand of KSRTC in its
\ncounter affidavit that it was not in a position financially to
\nmeet the requirements, on accepting the recommendations of
\nthe Fifth Pay Commission and KSRTC was facing great
\nfinancial difficulty.  The Court also noticed the submission of
\nlearned counsel for KSRTC that since the matter related to a
\npolicy decision, the advice of the State Government had to be
\ngiven due weightage and in the face of the earlier letter, the
\nmatter had been referred to the Government and KSRTC will
\ntake a decision as and when the Government approved the
\npolicy of giving the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission to the
\npensioners of KSRTC.  The court noticed that the pensioners
\nwere senior citizens and therefore an expeditious decision by
\nthe State Government was warranted. The court directed:
\n“It is for the State Government to take a
\ndecision in the mater having due regard to all
\nthe relevant circumstances including the
\nfinancial stability of the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, I direct the Government to take a
\ndecision in the matter within a reasonable time
\nand the Corporation shall take further action
\npursuant to the decision to be taken by the
\nGovernment.  A decision in this regard shall be
\ntaken within a period of six months of the date
\nof receipt of a copy of this judgment.”\n<\/p>\n
13.\t\tPursuant to this direction of the High Court
\nobtained by employees or pensioners of KSRTC, the
\nGovernment considered the matter and with particular
\nreference to the order in the writ petitions, informed KSRTC by
\nletter dated 16.5.1995 that having examined the matter in
\ndetail and since the financial position of KSRTC was not
\nsound, it was decided that grant of benefits of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission to the pensioners of KSRTC may be deferred for
\nbetter times.\n<\/p>\n
14.\t\tAs we understand this communication in the
\ncontext in which it was issued, we are of the view that this
\namounts to a direction in terms of Section 34 of the Act.  It
\nmust be remembered that this communication was issued
\nwhen the Government was directed by the High Court to take
\na policy decision on the question of implementing the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in respect of
\nthe employees of KSRTC.  Such a policy decision in the
\nabsence of a regulation, could obviously be only in terms of
\nSection 34 of the Act.  Therefore, when in compliance with the
\ndirection of the High Court, the Government took a policy
\ndecision and communicated the same to KSRTC to defer the
\nimplementation of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission, it could be understood only as a direction in
\nterms of Section 34 of the Act.  The context in which the
\ncommunication dated 16.5.1995 was issued, according to us,
\nclearly shows that it was intended to be a direction in terms of
\nSection 34 of the Act and the argument that formalities had
\nnot been complied with or that the same had not been notified,
\ndoes not enable the court to hold that the communication
\ndated 16.5.1995 must be understood only as a mere letter in
\nreply and nothing more.  The power to issue such a direction
\nis clearly traceable to Section 34 of the Act and the High Court
\nhad obviously directed the Government to take that decision
\nhaving in mind Section 34 of the Act.  It is therefore clear that
\nthe direction dated 16.5.1995 is a direction in terms of Section
\n34 of the Act.  The High Court, in our opinion, has not
\nconsidered the effect of the direction issued in O.P. No. 13233
\nof 1992-A and connected cases, and the decision taken by the
\nGovernment pursuant to that direction and the status of the
\ncommunication dated 16.5.1995.\n<\/p>\n
15.\t\tThe High Court has rested its decision on the
\ndirection of the Government dated 27.3.1984 authorizing
\nKSRTC to pay pension to its employees as per KSR and the
\nacceptance of the same by KSRTC by issue of the order dated
\n5.9.1984, obeying the direction and providing for payment of
\npension in terms of KSR as an incorporation of KSR by
\nreference.  Proceeding from this, the High Court has held that
\npension is payable to all the employees of KSRTC in terms of
\nPart III of KSR and this led to the position even as regards the
\ndate of payment as fixed by the Government for its employees.
\nThe High Court, though it noticed the decision in Union of
\nIndia Vs. P.N. Menon & ors. [AIR 1994 SC 2221] regarding
\nthe entitlement of KSRTC to look into various aspects like its
\nfinancial ability to pay, has proceeded to reason that in view of
\nthe adoption of Part III of KSR, the Corporation had lost its
\nright to fix a cut-off date in the absence of any direction under
\nSection 34 of the Act.  The court has also held that
\ncommunication of the Government dated 24.9.1992 had only
\ndirected deferring of payment of pension as recommended by
\nFifth Pay Commission and this meant that the Corporation
\nhad no right to fix a cut-off date especially in the absence of
\nany regulation framed by it.  We are not in a position to
\nendorse this reasoning or conclusion of the High Court.
\nKSRTC is an autonomous Corporation established under the
\nRoad Transport Corporation Act, 1950.  It can regulate the
\nservice of its employees by making appropriate regulations in
\nthat behalf.  Until such regulations are framed, it is entitled to
\ntake note of its financial health in considering whether a
\nparticular recommendation for enhanced pay or pension in
\nrespect of Government employees should be adopted by it and
\nif it is to adopted by it, from what point of time.  This, of
\ncourse, would be subject to any direction that may be issued
\nby the State Government in terms of Section 34 of the Act.  In
\nthe letter dated 24.9.1992 referred to by the High Court, the
\nGovernment had indicated that since the financial position of
\nKSRTC was not sound, the question of accepting the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission relating to
\npension and allied matters may be deferred for better times.
\nWhen the High Court intervened and directed the Government
\nto take a policy decision and not leave the matter pending in
\nview of the fact that the pensioners were generally senior
\ncitizens, the Government reconsidered the question and after
\nexamining the position in detail in the context of the financial
\nposition of KSRTC, took a decision that the grant of benefits of
\nthe Fifth Pay Commission to the pensioners of KSRTC may be
\ndeferred for better times.  We have already held that this was a
\ndirection to KSRTC in terms of Section 34 of the Act.  KSRTC
\nwas therefore bound to implement this direction in the
\nabsence of a regulation in that behalf.\n<\/p>\n
16.\t\tThe High Court, in our view, is not correct in
\nthinking that there is any compulsion on KSRTC on the mere
\nadoption of Part III of KSR, to automatically give all
\nenhancements in pension and other benefits given by the
\nState Government to its employees.  There is no provision in
\nPart III of KSR containing such a stipulation.  It only provides
\nfor payment of pension.  The question of revision or
\nenhancement of pension to its employees is left to KSRTC, an
\nautonomous Corporation, subject of course to any direction
\nthat may be issued by the State Government under Section 34
\nof the Act.  The mere adopting of Part III of KSR does not
\ntherefore shackle or control the power of KSRTC to take a
\ndecision in the absence of any regulation already framed, that
\nthe enhanced pensionary benefits as recommended by the
\nFifth Pay Commission need not be paid commencing on the
\nsame date as the State Government employees but the
\nquestion of enhancing pension could be considered at a later
\npoint of time.  There is nothing in Part III of KSR to control the
\npower of KSRTC to decide that the recommendations of the
\nFifth Pay Commission may be implemented with effect from a
\nparticular date or that it need not be implemented at all in
\nview of the precarious financial condition of KSRTC.  The
\nreasoning therefore that the direction to adopt Part III of KSR
\nand the order adopting it by KSRTC would denude KSRTC of
\nits power to fix a cut-off date for adopting and implementing
\nthe recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission is found to
\nbe not sustainable.\n<\/p>\n
17.\t\tLearned counsel for the respondents argued that
\nwhat the Government has directed is only to defer the
\npayment of pension and that meant that pension as
\nrecommended by the Fifth Pay Commission had become
\npayable but only the actual payment stood deferred to a future
\npoint of time.  In the context of what has happened here, this
\nargument cannot be accepted.  Obviously, the issue was
\nwhether the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission
\nregarding enhanced payment of pension and other allowances
\nto retired employees should be implemented by KSRTC in the
\nsituation in which it was placed and the direction of the
\nGovernment was that since the financial position was not
\nsound, the question had to be deferred.  The letter dated
\n16.5.1995 uses the expression:\n<\/p>\n
“It has been decided that grant of benefits of
\nthe Fifth Pay Commission to the pensioners of
\nKSRTC may be deferred for better times.”\n<\/p>\n
As we understand it, this communication means that the very
\nquestion of adopting the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
\nCommission stood postponed for better times and it is not
\npossible to read and understand it as directing that pension
\nhad to be paid in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth
\nPay Commission but its actual payment may be postponed.
\nThe grant itself was put off to a later point of time by the said
\ncommunication.  We, therefore, overrule this submission on
\nbehalf of the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
18.\t\tEven before us, also, it has been clearly pleaded by
\nKSRTC that its financial position is unsound. In fact, the High
\nCourt has also noticed it.  This Court has held that the
\nfinancial position of a Corporation like KSRTC is certainly
\nrelevant when the Corporation takes a decision as to whether
\nit should implement a recommendation for enhanced
\nemoluments and pension.   Since we find from the relevant
\naspects brought out that the financial position of KSRTC is not
\nsound, we are of the view that the decision taken by the State
\nGovernment not to implement, here and now, the
\nrecommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission for KSRTC and
\nthe decision based on it by KSRTC are fully justified.
\nCertainly, the decision cannot be said to be vitiated by any
\nextraneous consideration or perverse appreciation of the
\ncircumstances obtaining.\n<\/p>\n
19.\t\tThe result of this discussion is to hold that the High
\nCourt was in error in its decision and in directing that pension
\nhad to be paid in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth
\nPay Commission.  We therefore allow these appeals and setting
\naside the decisions of the High Court dismiss the writ petitions
\nfiled by the writ petitioners.  We make no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 Author: P Balasubramanyan Bench: H.K. Sema, P.K. Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2916 of 2007 PETITIONER: CHAIRMAN & M.D., K.S.R.T.C. RESPONDENT: K.O. VARGHESE & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09\/07\/2007 BENCH: H.K. SEMA & P.K. BALASUBRAMANYAN JUDGMENT: J U […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-39524","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4257,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\",\"name\":\"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007","datePublished":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007"},"wordCount":4257,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007","name":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-07-08T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-22T12:19:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chairman-m-d-k-s-r-t-c-vs-k-o-varghese-ors-on-9-july-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chairman & M.D., K.S.R.T.C vs K.O. Varghese & Ors on 9 July, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39524","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=39524"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/39524\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=39524"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=39524"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=39524"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}