Disposed

Surendran.R v. Kerala State Road Trsnport Corporation

Kerala HC22 May 2014WP(C)/11078/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation to consider the petitioner's applications for regularisation based on a specific Government Order, providing a personal hearing opportunity within three months. The court held the Corporation itself must decide the claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Respondent to consider the petitioner's exhibits P2 and P3 in light of Ext.P1, afford a personal hearing, and decide within three months.

Surendran.R Vs Kerala State Road Trsnport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM

¶4

THURSDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MAY 2014/1ST JYAISHTA, 1936

¶5

WP(C).No. 11078 of 2014 (H)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

SURENDRAN.R, AGED 41 YEARS, CHOONDUVILA VEEDU, UDAYAMKULANGARA, ARAVOOR P.O., NEYYATTINKARA, TRIVANDRUM (EMPANEL CONDUCTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NEYYATTINKARA DEPOT)

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.KRISHNADAS P. NAIR SRI.HARIDAS P.NAIR SMT.K.L.SREEKALA SRI.M.A.VINOD SRI.M.RAJESH KUMAR SRI. GIA MATHAI KANDATHIL

¶9

RESPONDENT:

¶10

KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NEYYATTINKARA DEPOT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶11

BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA, S.C

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22-05-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

Msd.

¶14

WP(C).NO. 11078 OF 2014 (H)

¶15

APPENDIX

¶16

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶17

EXHIBIT P1 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 22/12/2011 HAVING NO.GO(MS) N. 78/2011/TRA.

¶18

EXHIBIT P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 30/11/2012.

¶19

EXHIBIT P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE RESPONDENT DATED 30/07/2012.

¶20

EXHIBIT P4 : THE TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DATED 26/07/2012.

¶21

EXHIBIT P5 : THE TRUE COPY OF GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 13/03/2012.

¶22

EXHIBIT P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE DETAILS OF EMPLOYEES FOR REGULARIZATION OF THE RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXHIBIT P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST AND INFORMATION SEEKING DETAILS OF EMPANEL EMPLOYEES DATED 28/12/2013.

¶24

EXHIBIT P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST AND INFORMATION DATED 13/01/2011 OF THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KSRTC.

¶25

RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS:

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S.TO JUDGE.

Msd.

C.K.ABDUL REHIM,J.

------------------------------WP(C).NO. 11078 of 2014

¶32

Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2014

¶33

JUDGMENT

¶34

The petitioner is working as empaneled conductor in the respondent Corporation. While working as empaneled conductor he was removed from service on the basis that he had contested in the election to the local self Government institutions, without getting permission from the respondent Corporation. However he was permitted to rejoin duty as per Ext.P4 Memorandum, presumably based on Ext. P5 Government order.

¶35

The petitioner claims that he is entitled to be regularised in the service of the respondent Corporation on the basis of GO (MS) N.78/2011/ TRA dt. 22.12.2011 ( Ext.P1). It is submitted that, his claim for regularisation was not considered only because he was not continuing in service when Ext.P1 Government Order was issued. In view of reinstatement in duty, the petitioner claims for regularisation on the basis of Ext.P1.

¶36

In this regard the petitioner had submitted Exts.P2 and P3 representations before the Managing Director of the

¶37

WP(C).11078 /2014

¶38

¶39

respondent Corporation. Since those representations are not considered this writ petition is filed. Question whether the petitioner is entitled to be regularised on the basis of Ext.P1 Government Order is a matter which need primarily to be decided by the respondent Corporation. Since the Corporation has not considered the claim and taken a decision, it is only just and proper to direct consideration, of Exts. P2 and P3 by the Corporation within a time limit.

¶40

Therefore this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent to consider Exts.P2 and P3, in the light of Ext.P1 Government order, and to take an appropriate decision, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. A decision in this regard shall be taken at the earliest possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶41

C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE

¶42

pmn/

¶43

WP(C).11078 /2014 3

¶44

WP(C).11078 /2014 4

Surendran.R v. Kerala State Road Trsnport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendran.R v. Kerala State Road Trsnport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C. Mohanan Vs Sri. K.G. Mohanlal

M.A. Abdul Azeez Vs Mohandas

K.Chithrakumari Vs State of Kerala

Shiju Vs Dr K P Sreekumar

Justin K.J Vs Smijesh V.M

Daisy Cherian Vs District Collector