Disposed

Sri.R.Prithviraj v. the Manager(Pa) K.S.R.T.C.,Trivandrum

Kerala HC13 Dec 2011WP(C)/1106/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, appointed under a compassionate employment scheme, challenged his appointment as Assistant Depot Engineer, claiming entitlement to Depot Engineer post due to subsequent rule amendments. The court directed the respondents to apply clause 39 of the scheme for prospective appointment in the next vacancy and awarded future seniority calculations.

What did the court decide?

Directed appointment as Depot Engineer in the next arising vacancy and calculation of seniority as if promoted from the date of rule amendment.

Sri.R.Prithviraj Vs the Manager(Pa)… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2011 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1933

¶5

WP(C).No. 1106 of 2006(F)

¶6

---------------------------------------

¶7

PETITIONER(S):

¶8

-----------------------

¶9

R.PRITHVIRAJ, DEPOT. ENGINEER, KAYAMKULAM, T.C.1/2041, KUMARAPURAM MEDICAL COLLEGE P.O., TRIVANDRUM.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN

¶11

RESPONDENT(S):

¶12

--------------------------

¶13

1. THE MANAGER (PA), OFFICE OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶14

2. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶15

3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM (THE CHAIRMAN, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION).

¶16

R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

Kss

¶19

WPC.NO.1106/2006 F

¶20

APPENDIX

¶21

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶22

P1: COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.PLDI/04771/96 DTD. 05/`11/1996 ISSUED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT.

¶23

P2: COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.(P) NO.7/95/P&ARD DTD. 10TH MARCH 1996 ISSUED BY THE THIRD RESPONDENT.

¶24

P3: COPY OF THE GAZETTE NOTIFICATION IN CATEGORY NO.136/97 DTD.2ND SEPTEMBER 1997.

¶25

P4: COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER NO.005963/GL2/95/RTC DTD. 20/11/1996 ISSSUED TO SMT. R.INDU BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶26

P5: COPY OF THE ORIGINAL PETITION NO.4122 OF 1997R ISSUED BY THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DTD. 8TH JULY 2005.

¶27

P6: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.1016/GL2/97/RTC DGD. 19TH DECEMBER, 2005 ISSUED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT.

¶28

P7: COPY OF THE ADVERTISEMENT RELEASED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DTD. 4/12/2003 BY THE K.S.R.T.C.

¶29

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBIT:

¶30

R1(A): COPY OF “RECRUITMENT OF ASSISTANT TRANSPORT OFFICERS/ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS/DEPPOT ENGINEERS - REGULATIONS”.

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

Kss

S.SIRI JAGAN, J.

==================

W.P.(C).No. 1106 of 2006

¶37

==================

¶38

Dated this the 13^th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T

¶39

The petitioner is a degree holder in Mechanical Engineering. His father was an employee of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. He died while in service. As per Ext.P2 Government order dated 30.3.1995, the Government declared a scheme for compassionate employment for dependents of Government servants who die in harness. The said scheme has been made applicable to the employees of the KSRTC. In accordance with Ext.P2, the petitioner applied for appointment. The petitioner contends that he was entitled to be appointed as a Depot Engineer going by his qualifications. But he was appointed only as an Assistant Depot Engineer. Since the petitioner's representation for appointment as a Depot Engineer was not considered favourably, the petitioner filed O.P.No.4122/2997, in which, by Ext.P5 judgment, this Court directed consideration of the petitioner's representation. Pursuant thereto, Ext.P6 order has been passed holding that since the entry post in the KSRTC is that of Assistant Depot Engineer, as per Ext.P2, the petitioner is entitled to only appointment in that post insofar as the post of Depot Engineer is a promotion post. The petitioner is challenging the same seeking the following reliefs:

¶40

w.p.c.1106/06 - : 2 :-

¶41

“a. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order calling for the records leading to Exhibit P6 order and quashing the same.

¶42

b. issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Depot Engineer with effect from 05.11.1996 and to grant him all consequential service and monetary benefits.”

¶43

The petitioner submits that the contention of the respondents in Ext.P6 is belied by Ext.P7 notification issued by the KSRTC inviting applications for direct recruitment to the post of Depot Engineer. He would submit that insofar as appointment can be made to the post of Depot Engineer by direct recruitment, it is an entry post and, therefore, the finding in Ext.P6 to the contrary is clearly unsustainable.

¶44

A counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 and 2.

¶45

But when the matter was taken up for hearing, none appears for respondents 1 and 2. One of the contentions raised by the respondents in the counter affidavit is that Ext.P7 was issued much later on account of change of rules enabling the KSRTC to make direct recruitment to the post of Depot Engineer, which is not applicable to the petitioner, who was appointed long back. In answer to the same, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in that case, clause 39 of Ext.P2 scheme would come into play. According to him, going by clause 39, the petitioner is entitled to appointment as a Depot Engineer prospectively according to availability of vacancies.

¶46

I have considered the rival contentions in detail.

¶47

w.p.c.1106/06 - : 3 :-

¶48

4. Clause 39 of Ext.P2 reads thus;

¶49

“39. Medical and Engineering graduates and other technically qualified persons who were given appointment in subordinate service without taking into account their qualification based on the orders then force, will be given change of appointment prospectively accordingly to availability of vacancies in the usual entry posts to which persons with such qualification are appointed.”

¶50

Going by the same, if there is a change of rules subsequent to the appointment of the petitioner making the post of Depot Engineer as direct recruitment post, the petitioner is entitled to change of appointment prospectively. In the above circumstances, the respondents are directed to see that clause 39 of Ext.P2 is applied in the petitioner's case and the petitioner is given appointment as Depot Engineer in the next arising vacancy. If the petitioner has subsequently been promoted, the petitioner's seniority in the cadre of Depot Engineer shall be calculated as if the petitioner had been promoted to the post of Depot Engineer from the date when the rules were amended providing for appointment of Depot Engineer by direct recruitment. Orders in this regard shall be passed, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment.

¶51

The writ petition is disposed of as above.

¶52

sdk+

¶53

Sd/S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

¶54

///True copy///

¶55

P.A. to Judge

¶56

w.p.c.1106/06 - : 4 :-

Sri.R.Prithviraj v. the Manager(Pa) K.S.R.T.C.,Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.R.Prithviraj v. the Manager(Pa) K.S.R.T.C.,Trivandrum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Najiya Mohammed Vs Pushpalatha

P.J.Antony Vs Jacob Kurian

T.N.Sreedharan Pillai Vs State and Others

Rajesh Kumar.T. Vs Alkesh Kumar Sharma and Another

Muraleedharan Kartha Vs Thampi Paul

G.Sreekandan Nair Vs Wildlife Warden